53 Ala. App. 102 - Ford v. Mitcham’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co. v. Coleman (1981), Kure v. Chevrolet Motor Division (1978)
40 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 Gentry v. Swann Chemical Co. · Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co. · Trappey v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. · Riley v. Perkins · United States Steel Corp. v. Mathews
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Although Alabama does recognize a partnership as a legal entity for some purposes such as for the purpose of buying and selling property, the entity theory is not recognized for all purposes. Alabama has adopted the Uniform Partnership Act. (Citations omitted.) The Act does require the recognition of the entity concept for some purposes but does not change the common-law theory that the partnership is an aggregate of its individual members.' 53 Ala.App. at 105 , 298 So.2d at 36 ." Kelley v. Royal Globe Insurance Co., 349 So.2d at 563 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In deciding whether the employer-employee relationship exists, the deciding factor is the reserved right of control. An employer must reserve the right to direct the actions of the employee in carrying out the work for which the contract of employment was entered. United States Steel Corp. v. Matthews , 261 Ala. 120 , 73 So.2d 239 . . . ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(6) EMPLOYEE, WORKER, WORKMEN and WORKMAN. . . . Such terms include every person not excluded by section 25-5-50 , in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written. . . .”
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.