Lopez v. Massachusetts’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.3d 69 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. · Swint v. Chambers County Commission · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has outlined two instances in which pendent appellate jurisdiction may be appropriate: when an issue is 'inextricably intertwined' with a denial of immunity, - 21 - and if review of the pendent issue 'was necessary to ensure meaningful review' of immunity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he worker is paid by the hour, week, or month rather than the agreed cost of performing a particular job;””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[flhose guidelines, in their current form, list the following, non-exhaustive factors as indications that "a worker is in an employment relationship with an employer”: "[t]he employer has the right to control when, where, and how the worker performs the job;” "[t]he work does not require a high level of skill or expertise;” "[t]he work is performed on the employer’s premises;” "[flhere is a continuing relationship between the worker and the employer;” "[t]he employer has the right to assign additional projects to the worker;” “[t]he employer sets the hours of work and the duration of the job;” "[t]he worker is paid by the hour, week, or month rather than the agreed cost of performing a particular job;” "[t]he worker does not hire and pay assistants;” "[t]he work performed by the worker is part of the regular business of the employer;” ”[t]he employer is in business;” "[t]he worker is not engaged in his/her own distinct occupation or business;” "[t]he employer provides the worker with benefits such as insurance, leave, or workers’ compensation;” "[t]he worker is considered an employee- of the employer for tax pur poses;” "[t]he employer can discharge the worker;” and "[t]he worker and the employer believe that they are creating an employer-employee relationship. ’ ’”
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.