Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
603 F.2d 748 · 1979
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 14 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably 48 Cal. 3d 341 - S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989), Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency (1983)
61 federal appellate · 14 district · 12 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Silk · Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb · Bartels v. Birmingham
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the degree of the alleged employer’s right to control 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 helpers; 4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; 5) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and 6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider whether, as a matter of economic reality, the individuals 'are dependent upon the business to which they render service.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) Where one employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer (or employers) in relation to the employee; or (3) Where the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.”
4 later decisions 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.