United States v. Thorson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “any individual who under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship has the status of an employee.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zubrod v. Commissioner · Illinois Tri-Seal Products, Inc. v. United States

2. “However, there crept into these decisions a little of what lawyers cal! obiter dicta; that is, some words which were quite unnecessary to the result. These words were to the effect that, for purposes of social security, the Social Security Administration was not necessarily bound in-, extending the social-security coverage, by the ancient common-law definition of master and servant, or employer and employee, as you may choose to call it, but that they could take into the system as employees-any persons who were dependent upon a business in the light of economic-realities, thereby throwing into the entire system a confusion which required immediate legislative attention. The Social Security Administration and the Treasury proceeded immediately to prepare a departmental, regulation to carry that obiter dicta definition into effect. If this Congress had not interfered, tens of* thousands of people in America who never dreamed they were employed' by anybody and never for one moment thought they were covered by social security or subject to payroll taxes would have found that they-had been swept into the social-security system by bureaucratic ukase. In other words, they would suddenly have found that they had more employers than a dog had fleas. So, to end this confusion, this Congress-acted promptly, and, after thoroughgoing debate, and by a vote of nearly, 7 to 1, proceeded by legislation to put the matter in order once again by restoring the ancient doctrine of the common law d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Illinois Tri-Seal Products, Inc. v. United States

3. “The doctrine of the Supreme Court in Silk, Greyvan, and Bartels as reflected by its disposition of the specific situations presented in those cases, is an applied expression of the following statement of congressional intent in the legislative history : The tests for determining the (employer-employee) relationship laid down in cases relating to tort liability, and other common-law concepts of master and servant, should not be narrowly applied (H. Rept. No. 728, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 61). * * * * * A sound reading of these cases requires that the prefatory and random remarks of the Court which have been seized upon to supply a spurious gloss of validity to the proposed Treasury regulation shall be harmoniously related to the facts involved, the decisions, and to their moving rules; and if this cannot be done they must be regarded as surplusage. If we were compelled to interpret these remarks of' the Court we would say, in untechnical and summary fashion and without aiming at complete exposition, that the lower courts and administrative agencies were told r Don’t be fooled or unduly influenced by the form of the-arrangement to which you must apply the Social Security Act. Look to the real substance. Illuminate the-usual common-law control tests by regard for all the pertinent facts. This requires that all of the realities-that will lead you to the truth must be consulted and' weighed along with all other significant indicators of the real substance of the arrangement. 16 B”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Illinois Tri-Seal Products, Inc. v. United States