Simon Service Incorporated v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 10 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2001 · most notably Outboard Marine Corp. v. Schupbach (1977), Antonini v. Hanna Industries (1978)
4 federal appellate · 10 district · 40 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
Relies on Carstens v. Pillsbury · Nevada Industrial Commission v. Peck · Bello v. Notkins · Canfield v. Sheketoff · Phœnix Indemnity Co. v. Barton Torpedo 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The owner may, indeed, be said to be the person ‘who has the work done’ but, under the Nevada Act, as under the California Constitution, the liabilities and exemptions were intended to attach to employers of labor and not simply to owners of property as such. “Accordingly, as we interpret the intention of the 1951 amendment, it would eliminate an owner whose only status was as owner, but who might be said, as such owner, to be the person having the work done. When.that owner assumed an additional status, as appellant did in this case, of being principal employer or principal contractor, he was not eliminated just because he was also the owner. This interpretation is supported by many clauses of the act itself: the definition of the act as defining and regulating the liability of employers to their employees; the definition of employer as every person having any natural person in service; the use of the word employer in section after section of the act. A person having the work done — an owner, lessee, licensee — not occupying the status of an employer, or, as a contractor, of one who reasonably could be classed as an employer [sic], was apparently not within the original contemplation of the act and was eliminated by the 1951 legislature. . . .” 73 Nev. at 15 , 307 P.2d at 113 ; emphasis in original.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The very purpose of NRS 616.085 is, at least in part, to protect the employees of subcontractors against the possible irresponsibility of their immediate employers by making the principal contractor or principal employer having general control of the construction liable as if he had directly employed every workman on the job. Bello v. Notkins, 101 Conn. 34 , 124 A. 831 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Subcontractors” shall include independent contractors.”
1 later decision 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.