Latham v. Technar, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Boggs v. Blue Diamond Coal Co. (1979), Gurry v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. (1990)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 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 32 Tenn. App. 425 - International Harvester Co. v. Sartain · 142 F. Supp. 721 - Pierce v. United States · Berrier v. Associated Indemnity Co. · Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms · 94 N.J. Super. 426 - Blessing v. T. Shriver and Co.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because the employee’s acceptance of a contract of hire is necessarily followed by his loss of right to maintain a common lawsuit against his special employer, such acceptance cannot be lightly inferred. It is clear, therefore, that an employee cannot consent to work for a special employer in the dark; ‘[f]or compensation purposes, [the employee] cannot have an employer thrust upon him against his will or without his knowledge.’ * * * ” (Emphasis in original.) Citing an unidentified edition of Larson, supra, § 48.10 at 211.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the stock ownership of one corporation by another may serve in certain instances as an indicia of identity of commixture as between the two, for the purpose of determining who may maintain a common law action against a third party, it is not conclusive. Likewise, the presence of a common insurer as between the holding company and the wholly owned subsidiary does not automatically establish a single employer unit, nor does identity of management create identity for workmen's compensation purposes. [at 1037]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Employer” shall include any individual, firm, association or corporation, or the receiver, or trustee of the same, or the legal representative of a deceased employer, using the services of not less than five (5) persons for pay, ... [i]f the employer is insured, it shall include his insurer, unless otherwise herein provided. ...”
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.