Latimer v. Administrator’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 78 state decisions

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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The determination of the status of an individual as an independent contractor or employee is often difficult . . . and, in the absence of controlling considerations, is a question of fact.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stone v. Davis, No. Cv 89 0105533 (May 11, 1994) · Lobo v. Rock, No. Cv92 0332930s (Sep. 20, 1996)

2. ““(a) (1) ‘Employment,’ subject to the other provisions of this subsection, means: “(A) Any service, including service in interstate commerce, and service outside the United States, performed under any express or implied contract of hire creating the relationship of employer and employee; “(B) . . . subject to the other provisions of this subsection, [any] service performed ... by any of the following . . . (ii) any individual who, under either common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship or under the provisions of this subsection, has the status of an employee. Service performed by an individual shall be deemed to be employment subject to this chapter irrespective of whether the common law relationship of master and servant exists, unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the administrator that (I) such individual has been and will continue to be free from control and direction in connection with the performance of such service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and (II) such service is performed either outside the usual course of the business for which the service is performed or is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which the service is performed; and (III) such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed }}”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Department of Labor · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4175 - Jsf Promotions v. Administrator, U.C.A., No. Cv 97 057 58 01 (Apr. 3, 2002)

3. “It is not the fact of actual interference with the control, but the right to interfere, that makes the difference. . . . An employer-employee relationship does not depend on the actual exercise of the right to control. The right to control is sufficient. " Latimer v. Administrator, supra, 216 Conn. 248 . "The determination of the status of an individual as an independent contractor or employee is often difficult . . . and, in the absence of controlling consideration, is a question of fact.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lick Your Chops v. Administrator, No. Cv98 0407848 (Jan. 18, 2000) · 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 1651 - Lawler v. Blazawski, No. Cv 94 0056909 S (Feb. 11, 1998)