Standard Oil Company, an Indiana Corporation v. Ogden & Moffett Company, a Michigan Corporation, Ogden & Moffett Company, Cross v. Standard Oil Company, Cross’s Empirical Analysis
242 F.2d 287 · 1957
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1999
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 Standard Oil Company v. Edward Anderson · Driscoll v. Towle · Henrietta Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner · Rockwell v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. · McClure v. Steele
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the late Mr. Justice Cardozo observed in A Ministry of Justice, 35 Harvard Law Review, 113, at 121: ‘The Law that defines or seeks to define the distinction between general and special employers is beset with distinctions so delicate that chaos is the consequence.’ Professor Talbot Smith, now Mr. Justice Smith of the Michigan Supreme Court, in 38 Michigan Law Review, 1222, in a scholarly exposition of the loaned servant problem, examined the various tests that have been applied and arrived at a somewhat similar conclusion. Observing that one who seeks an explanation of the borrowed. servant cases, in terms of weighing the elements of control, is ‘inexorably driven to the expedient of making and accepting “desperate refinements,” etherial in substance and revolting .in reason, in order to approach any semblance of reconciliation.’ We recently concluded .in Aluminum Company of America v. Ward, 6 Cir., 231 F.2d 376 , at page 380, that where there is divided authority, and the borrower falls short of the power to command, there is lacking the necessary element in determining surrender of control by the general employer to a temporary employer under the loaned servant doctrine. These concepts lead to the conclusion that each case must be decided upon its own circumstances and, where the facts are not in dispute, the question is one of law. While an analysis of Michigan cases does not disclose precisely controlling tests, the Michigan Supreme Court, in White v. Bye, 342 Mich. 6”
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.