Daniels v. MacGregor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Hirschbach v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (1983), 91 Wash. 2d 550 - Novenson v. Spokane Culvert & Fabricating Co. (1979)
7 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 146 Ohio St. 187 - Bobik v. Industrial Commission · 211 F. Supp. 521 - St. Claire v. Minnesota Harbor Service, Inc. · 111 Ohio St. 791 - Trumbull Cliffs Furnace Co. v. Shachovsky · 154 Ohio St. 433 - Behner v. Industrial Commission · American Stevedores Co v. Industrial Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Wdiere, as in the instant case, an employer employs an employee with the understanding that the employee is to be paid only by the employer and at a certain hourly rate to work for a customer of the employer and where it is understood that that customer is to have the right to control the manner or means of performing the work, such employee in doing that work is an employee of the customer within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and where such customer has complied with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he will not be liable to respond in damages for any injury received by such employee in the course of or arising out of that work for such customer.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * In the instant case, plaintiff’s agreement with Manpower contemplated that Manpower would pay plaintiff fop ; work for a customer of Manpower such as MacGregor, who wasM to have the right to control the manner and means of perform-] ing the work and who was to pay Manpower at least enough] so that Manpower could pay plaintiff what he was willing toj accept for doing that work. In effect, the agreement between1 plaintiff and Manpower was such that plaintiff can be said to? have authorized Manpower to offer to MacGregor plaintiff’s1 services as an employee of MacGregor so that, after acceptance by MacGregor of that offer, there was a contractual relationship: among the three under which Manpower was to make certain payments on behalf of MacGregor to and for plaintiff, plain-1 tiff was to work as an employee for MacGregor, and MacGre-gor was to make certain payments to Manpower.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“any deficiencies on the construction site could be liable for a VSSR claim brought by employee injured by scaffolding erected by subcontractor); State ex rel. Lyburn, supra. Therefore, the court in Daniels found that the entity which controls the manner or means of performing the work is also the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.