Garrett v. Phillips Mills, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 979 · 1983
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Wheeler v. Hurdman (1987), Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun (1993)
38 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 630 (§ 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on United States v. Silk · Bartels v. Birmingham · Lewy v. Weinberger · Spirides v. Reinhardt · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Zippo Manufacturing Co.
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 85 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.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhether an individual is an employee ... is properly determined by analyzing the facts of each employment relationship under a standard that incorporates both the common law test derived from principles of agency and the so-called ‘economic realities’ test first announced in Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126 [ 67 S.Ct. 1547 , 91 L.Ed. 1947 ] (1947).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.”
5 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.