55 Cal. App. 2d 108 - Pire v. Gladding McBean & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 1984
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 Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury · Billing v. Southern Pacific Co. · 122 Cal. App. 22 - Handley v. Lombardi · New York Lubricating Oil Co. v. United Railroads of San Francisco · 16 Cal. App. 2d 645 - Bailey v. Wilson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of defendant Gene Morrison. It is plaintiffs’ theory that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that defendant Hickey was an employee of defendant Morrison rather than an independent contractor. “Defendant Morrison had been engaged in business for many years as a buyer, licensed by the Department of Agriculture. For several years he had also engaged in the trucking business as a ‘contract hauler,’ under the name of Associated Transportation Company. Defendant Hickey was also engaged in the trucking business as a ‘contract hauler.’ The latter owned a fleet of four trucks and was licensed to haul goods anywhere in this state. “During the peak of the season when Morrison was purchasing fruit and contracting for the hauling of the fruit to the canneries, he frequently found that his own equipment was insufficient and that he needed to obtain the services of other contract haulers. He therefore obtained such services on a tonnage basis for specified trips or in other words on a ‘load-to-load basis.’ At the time of the accident, defendant Hickey was hauling peaches on such basis, under a contract with defendant Morrison, from a point near Tuba City to San Jose. “We find no evidence in the record which would have sustained a finding that defendant Hickey was an employee of defendant Morrison. The uncontradicted evidence shows that defendant Hickey was a licensed contract hauler, operating a f”
2 later decisions 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.