Simpson v. Kelly Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1995
3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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 Amyx v. Henry & Hall · Marek v. McHardy · Hartwig Moss Ins. Agency, Ltd. v. Board of Com'rs · 393 F. Supp. 1304 - Fine v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc. · 335 So. 2d 713 - Gold & Suckle, Inc. v. Suckle
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No employer shall require or direct any employee to enter into any contract whereby the employee agrees not to engage in any competing business for himself, or as the employee of another, upon the termination of his contract of employment with such employer, and all such contracts, or provisions thereof containing such agreement shall be null and unenforceable in any court, provided that in those cases where the employer incurs an expense in the training of the employee or incurs an expense in the advertisement of the business that the employer is engaged in, then in that event it shall be permissible for the employer and employee to enter into a voluntary contract and agreement whereby the employee is permitted to agree and bind himself that at the termination of his or her employment that said employee will not enter into the same business that employer is engaged over the same route or in the same territory for a period of two years.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`It is well settled by our jurisprudence that besides other factors, the most important test in determining "whether a person employed to do certain work is an independent contractor or a mere servant is the control over the work which is reserved by the employer." It is also well settled that whether the employer "actually exercises control or supervision" over the movements and the services rendered by the employee, such a fact is of no great moment, the "important question is whether, from the nature of the relationship, he had the right to do so". * * * "`In the case of Hartwig Moss Ins. Agency, Limited, v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans, 206 La. 395 , 19 So.2d 178, 184 , we said: "`An independent contractor is one who renders service in the course of an occupation representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work, and not as to the means by which it is accomplished.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[section] 921 applies only to persons in employee-employer relationships and will not be extended to other relationships by judicial construction or interpretation.”
2 later decisions 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.