Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 F.3d 574 - Ware v. United States

Ware v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

67 F.3d 574 · 1995

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2019

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

90199520002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America · Murphy v. Sullivan

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

  1. ““In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a hiring party's control is more relevant in the context of copyright ownership, because the statute assigns ownership on the basis of authorship unless the parties explicitly agree otherwise,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Reid is a sculptor, a skilled occupation. ... Reid supplied his own tools. Reid was retained for less than two months, a relatively short period of time.... During and after this time, CCNV had no right to assign additional projects to Reid. Apart from the deadline for completing the sculpture, Reid had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work. CCNV paid Reid $15,000, a sum dependent on “completion of a specific job, a method by which independent contractors are often compensated.” Reid had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants.... Finally, CCNV did not pay payroll or Social Security taxes, provide any employee benefits, or contribute to unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation funds.”
    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.