Cobb v. Sun Papers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
673 F.2d 337 · 1982
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Armbruster v. Quinn (1983), Wheeler v. Hurdman (1987)
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. · Bartels v. Birmingham · United States v. Rosenwasser · Spirides v. Reinhardt
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether the work usually is done under the direction of a supervisor or is done by a specialist without supervision; (2) the skill required in the particular occupation; (3) whether the “employer” or the individual in question furnishes the equipment used and the place of work; (4) the length of time during which the individual has worked; (5) the method of payment, whether by time or by the job; (6) the manner in which the work relationship is terminated; i.e., by one or both parties, with or without notice and explanation; (7) whether annual leave is afforded; (8) whether the work is an integral part of the business of the “employer”; (9) whether the worker accumulates retirement benefits; (10) whether the “employer” pays social security taxes; and (11) the intention of the parties.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e conclude therefore that the term “employee” in cases under Title VII is to be construed in light of common-law concepts. The analysis of the question in a given case should take into account the economic realities of the situation.... This does not mean, however, that the economic realities with respect to the dependence of the individual on the employment will control. Rather, it is the economic realities viewed in light of the common law principles of agency and the right of the employer to control the employee that are determinative.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This [hybrid] test calls for application of general principles of the law of agency to undisputed or established facts. Consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding the work relationship is essential, and no one factor is determinative. Nevertheless, the extent of the employer’s right to control the “means and manner” of the worker’s performance is the most important factor to review here, as.it is at common law.... If an employer has the right to control and direct the work of an individual, not only as to the result to be achieved, but also as to the details by which that result is achieved, an employer/employee relationship is likely to exist.”
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.