Reader v. Ghemm Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2001
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 Tex-Jersey Oil Corporation v. Beck · Nepstad v. Lambert · Billing v. Southern Pacific Co. · 63 Wash. 2d 252 - Davis v. Early Construction Co. · 24 Cal. App. 2d 70 - Lowell v. Harris
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A servant directed or permitted by his master to perform services for another may become the servant of such other in performing the services. He may become the other’s servant as to some acts and not as to others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2) In determining whether one acting for another is a servant or an independent contractor, the following matters of fact, among others, are considered: (a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work; (b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision; (d) the skill required in the particular occupation; (e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (f) the length of time for which the person is employed; (g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer; (i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and (j) whether the principal is or is not in business.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Reader has adequately preserved his right to urge error in the instruction. Reader objected to the instruction as given: . . . Reader also proposed an instruction on the loaned servant doctrine. His requested instruction was no better than the instruction given in terms of the concept of control, but we feel that Ms failure to request a correct instruction does not preclude his raising the issue on appeal. His objection is all that is required in order to comply with Rule 51(a), Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. Reader’s oral objection was sufficient to put the court and opposing counsel on notice as to the defect of the instruction given (emphasis added).”
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.