512 F. Supp. 2d 1273 - Murray v. Playmaker Services, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb · Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc. · Earley v. Champion International Corp. · Sweat v. Miller Brewing 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the nature and degree of the alleged employer’s control as to the manner in which the work is to be performed; (2) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his managerial skill; (3) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or his employment of workers; (4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; (5) the degree of permanency and duration of the working relationship; [and] (6) the extent to which the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.”
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.