Costello v. Beavex, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.3d 1045 · 2016
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Daniel v. Cook County (2016), Schwann v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. (2016)
11 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) · 49 U.S.C. § 14501
Relies on American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Wyeth v. Levine · American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens · Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass'n
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[G]enerally applicable state laws that affect the carrier's relationship with its customers [differ from] those that affect the carrier's relationship with its workforce.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The preemptive scope of the FAAAA is broad; [See Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383-84 , 112 S.Ct. 2031, 2036 , 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992)]. A state law is preempted if it has a direct' connection with or specifically references a earner’s prices, routes, or services. Id. at 384 , 112 S.Ct. 2031 . More expansively, a state law may be preempted even if the law’s effect on prices, routes, or services “is only indirect.” Id. at 386 , 112 S.Ct. 2031 (quotation marks omitted). This means “that preerhption occurs at least where state laws' have a ‘significant impact’ related to Congress’ deregulatory and pre-emption-related objectives.” [Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364, 371 , 128 S.Ct. 989, 995 , 169 L.Ed.2d 933 (2008)] (quoting Morales, 504 U.S. at 390 , 112 S.Ct. 2031 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As used in this Act, the term “employee” shall include any individual permitted to work by an employer in an occupation, but shall not include any individual: (1) who has been and will continue to be free from control and direction over the performance of his work, both under his contract of service with his employer and in fact; and (2) who performs work which is either outside the usual course of business or is performed outside all of the places of business of the employer unless the employer is in the business of contracting with third parties for the placement of employees; and (3)who is in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.