Olick v. Kearney’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1161 (§ 601 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila · Appleton v. Board of Education
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a. Kearney, as general agent, appointed Olick a field agent as the Knights’ insurance sales representative for various Knights “councils.” (Id. ¶ 2) b. The Knights could “change or revoke the assignment of designated councils at any time.” (Id.). c. Kearney, as general agent, could “change or revoke the assignment of councils in accordance with the guidelines established by the [Knights].” (Id.). d. “[njothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee between the [Knights] and the Field Agent, between the [Knights] and the General Agent, or between the General Agent and the Field Agent. The Field Agent shall be free to exercise independent judgment as to the eligible persons from whom applications for insurance will be solicited, and as to the time and place of such solicitation. The Field Agent shall abide by rules and procedures established by the Order, but such rules and procedures shall not be construed as interfering with the freedom of action of the Field Agent as described in this Agreement.” (Id. ¶4) (emphasis added). e. Olick was required to “devote his full time and entire attention and energy to the services required under this Agreement, and he shall not engage in any other occupation or business.” (Id. ¶ 5a) (emphasis added). f. Olick was required to “procure applications for Knights ... insurance in a volume satisfactory to the [Knights ]....” (M ¶ 5b). g. Olick could not “accept a check or money order in”
1 later decision 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.