Egemo v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc. (1998), Caldwell v. John Morrell & Co. (1992)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 34 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 Permann v. South Dakota Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division · Anton v. Industrial Commission of Arizona · Cockran v. Rice · In Re the Termination of the Franchise Agreement Between Groseth International, Inc. · Steen v. Potts
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) was engaged in an enterprise that was created and exists apart from her relationship with TAK and that the enterprise would survive the termination of that relationship; (2) has a proprietary interest in the enterprise to the extent that she can operate without hindrance from any other individual; (3) due to her skill, is engaged in an economic enterprise such that she bears the risk of unemployment; and (4) remains employed as a function of market forces and the demand for her skills, rather than the response of an employer to similar economic realities. All four prongs of this test ... require that the individual have some relationship with an economic enterprise that is independent of the relationship with the company that is allegedly subject to unemployment insurance taxation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) An enterprise independently established; (2) An enterprise created and existing séparate and apart from the relationship with the particular employer; (3) An enterprise that will survive the termination of that relationship; (4) An enterprise in which the individual possesses a proprietary interest to the extent that it can be operated without hinderance from any other individual.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Davis v. Frizzell
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.