Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 608 F.3d 495 - United States v. Bonds

United States v. Bonds’s Empirical Analysis

608 F.3d 495 · 2010

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
June 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731

Relies on Bourjaily v. United States · United States v. Hinkson · Hoptowit v. Ray · Merrick v. Farmers Insurance Group · Batzel v. Smith

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “1) the control exerted by the employer, 2) whether the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation, 3) whether the work is normally done under the supervision of an employer, 4) the skill required, 5) whether the employer supplies tools and instrumentalities [and the place of work], 6) the length of time employed, 7) whether payment is by time or by the job, 8) whether the work is in the regular business of the employer, 9) the subjective intent of the parties, and 10) whether the employer is or is not in business.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “essential ingredient. . . is the extent of control exercised by the employer.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “there must be at least some manifestation of assent” to the right to control. Id. at 507 . 16 . A letter from DCAG Chairman Jurgen Schrempp in a DCAG publication, under the headline “Our Presence in North America,” said that DCAG had 125,000 employees in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, (emphasis added). The same publication said that DCAG paid $8.2 billion in wages in the United States in 2003. 17 . DCAG points to a news article about another Argentinian Supreme Court case involving the prosecution of a government official for acts committed during the Dirty War; the article says that”
    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.