Ricketts v. Vann’s Empirical Analysis
32 F.3d 71 · 1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2014
4 federal appellate · 2 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 29 U.S.C. § 1801 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1841 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1842 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Logarusic v. United States · Woodson v. Rowland · Drewitt v. Pratt · Shealy v. Winston · Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ownership of the property and facilities where the work occurred; (2) degree of skill required to perform the job; (3) investment in equipment and facilities; (4) permanency and exclusivity of employment; • (5) nature and degree of control of the workers; (6) degree of supervision, direct and indirect, of the work; (7) power to determine the pay rates or the methods of payment of the workers; (8) the right, directly or indirectly, to hire, fire, or modify the employment conditions of the workers; and (9) preparation of payroll and payment of wages.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is well-established that the issue of whether an employer/employee relationship exists under the FLSA, and hence the AWPA, must be judged by the “economic realities” of each individual case. A person is responsible as an “employer” of another where the work “follows the usual path of the employee,” and where, as a matter of economic reality, the employee is dependent upon that person for their livelihood. The touchstone of economic reality in analyzing the possible employment relationship is clearly economic “dependency.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No person shall utilize the services of any farm labor contractor to supply any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker unless the person first takes reasonable steps to determine that the farm labor contractor possesses a certificate of registration which is valid and which authorizes the activity for which the contractor is utilized. In making that determination, the person may rely upon either possession of a certificate of registration, or confirmation of such registration by the Department of Labor.”
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.