Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 S.C. 261 - Riden v. Kemet Electronics Corp.

Riden v. Kemet Electronics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2013

1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

90199320002010decided

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 Bargesser v. Coleman Co. · Benbow v. EDMUNDS HIGH SCHOOL · Revels v. Hoechst Celanese Corp. · Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Coastal Tire & Auto Service · Bigham v. Nassau Recycle Corp.

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

  1. “When any person, in this section and §§ 42-1-420 and 42-1-430 referred to as “owner,” undertakes to perform or execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation and contracts with any other person (in this section and §§ 42-1-420 to 42-1-450 referred to as “subcontractor”) for the execution or performance by or under such subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such owner, the owner shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the work any compensation under this Title which he would have been liable to pay if the workman had been immediately employed by him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To determine whether the work performed by a subcontractor is a part of the owner’s business, this [c]ourt must consider whether (1) the activity of the subcontractor is an important part of the owner’s trade or business; (2) the activity performed by the subcontractor is a necessary, essential, and integral part of the owner’s business; or (3) the identical activity performed by the subcontractor has been performed by employees of the owner.”
    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.