Lane Processing Trust v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 662 · 1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2023
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 26 U.S.C. § 3101 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act)
Relies on United States v. Silk · Otte v. United States · United States v. Citizens Utilities Co. · Breaux and Daigle Inc v. United States · RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any service of whatever nature performed by an employee for the person employing him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Trust also argues that FICA and FUTA are inapplicable here because the Lane Companies employees did not work for the Trust, and thus the Trust was not an "employer." This argument also is without merit. The Trust need not have employed the Lane Companies employees in a legalistic sense to be treated as their employer for FICA and FUTA purposes. See Otte v. United States 419 U.S. 43, 50-51 , 95 S.Ct. 247, 252-53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 212 (1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“based on factors traditionally used to determine employee compensation, specifically, the value of the services performed by the employee, [and] the length of the employee's employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.