United States v. Silk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

592 federal appellate · 106 district · 111 state decisions

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 1,477 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Probably it is quite impossible to extract from the statute a rule of thumb to define the limits of the employer-employee relationship. The Social Security Agency and the courts will find that degrees of control, opportunities for profit or loss, investment in facilities, permanency of relation and skill required in the claimed independent operation are important for decision. No one is controlling nor is the list complete.”

   24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. New England Coal & Coke Co. · Ball v. Mathews

2. “(b) Generally such relationship exists when the person for whom services are performed has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to the details and means by which that result is accomplished. That is, an employee is subject to the will and control of the employer not only as to what shall be done but how it shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary that the employer actually direct or control the manner in which the services are performed; it is sufficient if he has the right to do so. The right to discharge is also an important factor indicating that the person possessing that right is an employer. Other factors characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and the furnishing of a place to work, to the individual who performs the services. In general, if an individual is subject to the control or direction of another merely as to the result to be accomplished by the work and not as to the means and methods for accomplishing the result, he is an independent contractor. An individual performing services as an independent contractor is not as to such services an employee * * *. (c) Whether the relationship of employer and employee exists will in doubtful eases be determined upon an examination of the particular facts of each case. (d) If the relationship of employer and employee exists, the designation or d”

   20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dimmitt-Rickhoff-Bayer Real Estate Co. v. Finnegan · Powers v. United States

3. “[W]e agree with the decisions below in Silk and Greyvan that where the arrangements leave the driver-owners so much responsibility for investment and management as here, they must be held to be independent contractors. These driver-owners are small businessmen. They own their own trucks. They hire their own helpers. In one instance they haul for a single business, in the other for any customer. The distinction, though important, is not controlling. It is the total situation, including the risk undertaken, the control exercised, the opportunity for profit from sound management, that marks these driver-owners as independent contractors.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Van Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Merchants Home Delivery Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board