37 N.J. Super. 320 - Condon v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 1998
13 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 DeMonaco v. Renton · Wilson v. Kelleher Motor Freight Lines, Inc. · Cappadonna v. Passaic Motors, Inc. · Cappadonna v. Passaic Motors, Inc. · Forrester v. Eckerson
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our courts have considered other factors in determining "status." In Clausen v. Dinnebeil, 125 N.J.L. 223 [ 15 A. 2d 205 ] (Sup.Ct. 1940), where the petitioner, a carpenter, was hired to put a roof on respondent's house, payment to be $1 an hour for an 8-hour day, the court held the employment to be casual and not compensable. Cf. Otmer v. Perry, 94 N.J.L. 73 [ 108 A. 369 ] (Sup.Ct. 1919). In Hart v. Kimball, 122 N.J.L. 217 [ 4 A. 2d 493 ] (Sup.Ct. 1939), the petitioner was engaged to complete a roofing job, payment to be $3 per "square" of shingle applied. He was told what was to be done, but not how to do it. The court held him an independent contractor. In Forrester v. Eckerson, 107 N.J.L. 156 [ 151 A. 639 ] (E. & A. 1930), and Fitzpatrick v. Haberman, 16 N.J. Super. 490 [ 85 A. 2d 7 ] (App.Div. 1951), it was held that hiring for a single job rather than for recurrent employment is indicative of an independent contractor relationship. In Cappadonna v. Passaic Motors, Inc., 136 N.J.L. 299 [ 55 A. 2d 462 ] (Sup.Ct. 1947), affirmed 137 N.J.L. 661 [ 61 A. 2d 282 ] (E. & A. 1948), the petitioner, a carpenter, was hired to do carpentry work at $15 per day. He presented a weekly bill for his services and those of his helpers, no social security or unemployment compensation deductions being made from payments to him. He was free to work by whatever means he chose; and was held to be an independent contractor. Cf. Armitage v. Trustees of Mt. Fern. M.E. Church, 33 N.J. Super. 367 [ ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Clausen v. Dinnebeil, 125 N.J.L. 223 [ 15 A. 2d 205 ] (Sup.Ct. 1940), where the petitioner, a carpenter, was hired to put a roof on respondent's house, payment to be $1 an hour for an 8-hour day, the court held the employment to be casual and not compensable. Cf. Otmer v. Perry, 94 N.J.L. 73 [ 108 A. 369 ] (Sup.Ct. 1919). In Hart v. Kimball, 122 N.J.L. 217 [ 4 A. 2d 493 ] (Sup.Ct. 1939), the petitioner was engaged to complete a roofing job, payment to be $3 per”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The determinative factor as to whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of workmen's compensation is control; the relationship of master and servant exists whenever the employer retains the right to determine not only what shall be done, but how it shall be done. De Monaco v. Renton, 18 N.J. 352 [ 113 A. 2d 782 ] (1955). [Emphasis added].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.