44 F. Supp. 21 - Burruss v. Early’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 42 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 901 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 1 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Burnet v. Harmel · Chas Steward Mach Co v. Davis · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States
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.
““The relationship between the person for whom such services are performed and' the individual who performs such services, must as to those services be the legal relationship of employer and employee. 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 of 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.” (Italics mine) Treasury Regulation 91,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Emard v. Squire
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.