Herr v. Heiman’s Empirical Analysis
75 F.3d 1509 · 1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2014
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb · Dennis v. Dennis · National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America · Huebner v. United States
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the employer’s right to require compliance with instructions (economic reality test’s degree of control factor); (2) the extent of any training provided by the employer; (3) the degree of integration of the worker’s services into the business of the employer (economic reality test’s integral part of employer’s business factor); (4) the requirement that the services be provided personally by the worker; (5) the extent to which the worker hires, supervises, and pays assistants; (6) the existence of a continuing relationship between the worker and the employer (economic reality test’s permanence of tire working relationship factor); (7) the employer’s establishment of set work hours; (8) the requirement that the worker devote full-time to the employer’s business; (9) tire degree to which the work is performed on the employer’s premises; (10) the degree to which the employer sets the order and sequence of work; (11) the requirement that tire worker submit regular or written reports to the employer; (12) tire manner of payment to the worker, e.g., by the hour, day, or job; (13) the extent to which the employer pays the worker’s business or travel expenses; (14) the degree to which tire employer furnishes tools, equipment, and material (economic reality test’s investment in business factor); (15) the incurrence of significant investment by the worker (economic reality test’s investment in business factor); (16) the ability of the worker to malee a profit or suffer a loss (econo”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“theory applied by the First Circuit in Fair Labor Standard Act cases. 1 Because Mr. Herr did not advance this theory before the trial court at the summary judgment stage we will not consider it on appeal. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Hubbard, 869 F.2d 565, 570 (10th Cir.1989) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Herr v. Heiman“[w]hether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is generally a question of fact for the jury to decide”); Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249 , 263-64 (7th Cir.2001) (holding, in Title VII context, that”
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.