Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 663 SW2D 435 - Hill v. King

Hill v. King’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2018

5 state decisions

201983199020002010decided

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 Harris v. Seiavitch · 219 Cal. App. 2d 457 - Van Horn v. Industrial Accident Commission · Matter of Bernstein v. . Beth Israel Hospital · Carraway Methodist Hospital, Inc. v. Pitts · Seals v. Zollo

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

  1. “[t]he word ‘hire’ connotes payment of some kind. By contrast with the common law of master and servant, which recognized the possibility of having a gratuitous servant, the compensation decisions uniformly exclude from the definition of ‘employee’ workers who neither receive nor expect to receive any kind of pay for their services. ‡ ⅜: ⅜ # ⅜ ⅜ The element of payment, to satisfy the requirement of a contract of hire, need not be in money, but may be in anything of value. Board, room, and training, such as might be furnished to a student nurse or hospital intern, are treated as the equivalent of wages. Indeed, food and lodging have figured as payment in as diverse employments as college football and county prisoner. And even refreshments which were the sole payment given a casual porter for the odd jobs he did, were held sufficient to sustain a finding of employment. On the other hand, mere gratuities or gifts, unless understood by the parties to constitute the equivalent of wages, are not considered payment under a contract of hire. The same is true of various discounts that may go with claimant’s position....”
    3 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.