Darner v. Colby’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably 202 Ill. 2d 228 - Eychaner v. Gross (2002), Wardle v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund (1980)
12 federal appellate · 35 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 Singer Manuf'G Co v. Rahn · Pioneer Fireproof Construction Co. v. Hansen · Hartley v. Red Ball Transit Co. · Decatur Railway & Light Co. v. Industrial Board · Bristol & Gale Co. v. Industrial Commission
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The right to control the manner of doing the work is of principal importance in the consideration of the question whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor. . . . The test is in the right to control and not the fact of whether actual interference with the method of doing the work is shown by the evidence. If the person for whom the work is being done retains the right to control the manner in which the work is to be done, the relation of employer and employee exists.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [The status] depends upon the contract between the parties and their relationship as shown by the evidence. Each case must depend upon its own facts. Generally no one feature of the relation is determinative but all must be construed together. 10 * * * * * * 11”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whenever a violation of the regulations of the company as to the manner of conducting the business occurred, it was his [divisional manager] business to call the matter to * * * [the tank-truck owner's] attention.”
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.