Harris v. Velichkov’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 13901 · 49 U.S.C. § 13906
Relies on Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · McFarland v. Scott · Torgerson v. City of Rochester · Aw v. Lancaster County School Dist. 0001 · Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Thien
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is questionable whether that definition was intended to have the effect of fundamentally rewriting state tort law. But leaving that aside, the plaintiffs are misapplying the definition. No one disputes that Velichkov was an employee of someone. But who was his employer? The obvious answer is Fresh Start. The plaintiffs’ argument fails because Velichkov was not an independent contractor with anyone. He had no contract with FedEx, and he was undeniably an employee of Fresh Start. So, it is Fresh Start, not FedEx, that is vicariously liable for his alleged negligence.”
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.