Alday v. Patterson Truck Line, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
750 F.2d 375 · 1985
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Trevino v. General Dynamics Corp. (1989), Melancon v. Amoco Production Co. (1988)
16 federal appellate · 8 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 33 U.S.C. § 905
Relies on County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Dixson v. United States · Credithrift of America, Inc. v. United States · Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Investment Corp. · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the amount of control the borrower has over the servant and the work he or she performs; (2) whether there is an agreement, understanding, or meeting of the minds between the borrower and the lender; (3) agreement or acquiescence by the servant that he be employed by the borrower; (4) temporary termination by the general employer of its relationship with the servant; (5) furnishing by the borrower of the necessary instruments and the place for performance of the work in question; (3) employment of the servant over a considerable length of time; (7) the fact that work being performed is that of the temporary employer; (8) customary right to discharge the servant; and (9) obligation for payment of the servant’s wages.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Gaudet, supra, 562 F.2d at 359 , it is true, summary judgment was upheld against the employee-plaintiff as “borrowed,” despite a somewhat similar provision in the contract between the payroll and borrowing employers. However, unlike the facts so far shown by the present record, in Gaudet all factors other than the contract pointed to the acquiescence of both payroll employer and the plaintiff employees to the latters’ undisputed transfer to exclusive supervision and control by the borrowing employer over an extended period of time (12 years for one plaintiff, 17 for another), under conditions where the employees fully appreciated and accepted the risks of their borrowed employment. Id., 562 F.2d at 358-59 . The issue was therefore resolved on the basis of the factual matters not in dispute, which negated the significance of the contract. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, ‘the court must indulge every reasonable inference from those facts in favor of the party opposing the motion.’ (citation omitted) A granting of summary judgment is appropriate only where it appears from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits—considered in the light most favorable to the opposing party— that there is ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ (citation omitted) Any doubt as to the existence of a material fact is to be resolved against the moving party. Al day v. Patterson Truck Line, Inc., 750 F.2d 375, 377 (5th Cir.1985). (emphasis in the original)”
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.