Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Va. 78 - Metro MacHine Corp. v. Mizenko

Metro MacHine Corp. v. Mizenko’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

2 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Gallimore v. Commonwealth (1993), Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc. (1999)

2 district · 41 state decisions

320199220002010decided

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

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901

Relies on Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Standard Oil Company v. Edward Anderson · Bourjaily v. United States

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

  1. “(1) who has control over the employee and the work he is performing; (2) whether the work performed is that of the borrowing employer; (3) was there an agreement between the original employer and the borrowing employer; (4) did the employee acquiesce in the new work situation; (5) did the original employer terminate its relationship with the employee; (6) who is responsible for furnishing the work place, work tools and working conditions; (7) the length of the employment and whether it implied acquiescence by the employee; (8) who had the right to discharge the employee; and (9) who was required to pay the employee.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Under the borrowed servant doctrine, a worker, although directly employed by one entity, may be transferred to the service of another so that he becomes the employee of the second entity “with all the legal consequences of the new relation.” One of the legal consequences of the “new relation” is that workers’ compensation is the injured employee’s exclusive remedy against the second entity-employer.”
    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.