25 Cited authorities

Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck History Soc. v. Admin
238 Conn. 273 (Conn. 1996) Cited 245 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff museum was liable for unemployment benefits for art instructor, who plaintiff alleged it employed as independent contractor, because use of article ‘‘the" to modify ‘‘business" in ‘‘ABC test" statute was intended to reference ‘‘the particular activities engaged in by the plaintiff" museum specifically rather than by museums generally
Somers v. Converged Access, Inc.
454 Mass. 582 (Mass. 2009) Cited 120 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer was liable under the Wage Act even when it in good faith classified employee as an independent contractor instead of an employee
Vargas v. Cummings
149 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 1998) Cited 158 times
Holding that the existence of medical malpractice protection as one of five factors that influence whether a doctor and health care provider have an employee-employer relationship
Papa John's International Inc. v. McCoy
244 S.W.3d 44 (Ky. 2008) Cited 96 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Supreme Court "considered with approval the tentative draft of the Third Restatement of Agency, which rejected the scope of employment formulations based on assessments of forseeability, instead focusing on the employee's purpose."
Rodríguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.
570 F.3d 402 (1st Cir. 2009) Cited 69 times
Holding that the “tolling effect persisted until that action came to a ‘definite end’ ... when it was voluntarily dismissed”
Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc.
2004 WI 86 (Wis. 2004) Cited 79 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee because it did not exercise "day-to-day" control over the franchisee's business akin to an employer's control over his employees
Boulanger v. Dunkin' Donuts Incorporated
442 Mass. 635 (Mass. 2004) Cited 75 times
Holding covenants in franchise agreement were enforceable
Athol Daily v. Board, Div., Emp., Train
439 Mass. 171 (Mass. 2003) Cited 70 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that newspaper carriers satisfied part C because they used their own vehicles, were free to deliver for other newspapers or companies, purchased newspapers wholesale and resold them to subscribers, with lack of advertising not dispositive because carriers were free to advertise if they desired "in an attempt to increase the number of subscribers on their routes or to acquire similar relationships with other publishing companies"
Dykes v. Depuy, Inc.
140 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1998) Cited 72 times
Concluding that "a reasonable factfinder could not find on this record that [Defendant] was not [Plaintiff's] employer" under ERISA
Hoffnagle v. McDonald's Corp.
522 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 1994) Cited 66 times
Holding that “[w]hether a franchisor owes a duty of care to its franchisee's employee ... turns on the extent of the franchisor's retained control over the property and the daily operation of the restaurant”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,736 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 149:148B - Persons performing service not authorized under this chapter deemed employees; exception
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 148B Cited 174 times 33 Legal Analyses
Specifying types of services considered to be not those performed by an employee and noting that an employer's failure to make withholdings or payments that would be required for an employee "shall not be considered in making a determination" as to a person's employee status
Section 436.2 - Obligation to furnish documents
16 C.F.R. § 436.2 Cited 58 times 1 Legal Analyses
Requiring franchisors to furnish prospective franchisees with a "current disclosure document"

De Giovanni v. Jani-King International, Inc. et al

25 Cited authorities

Holding that employer was liable under the Wage Act even when it in good faith classified employee as an independent contractor instead of an employee

Holding that the existence of medical malpractice protection as one of five factors that influence whether a doctor and health care provider have an employee-employer relationship

Holding that the Supreme Court "considered with approval the tentative draft of the Third Restatement of Agency, which rejected the scope of employment formulations based on assessments of forseeability, instead focusing on the employee's purpose."

Holding that the “tolling effect persisted until that action came to a ‘definite end’ ... when it was voluntarily dismissed”

Holding that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee because it did not exercise "day-to-day" control over the franchisee's business akin to an employer's control over his employees

Holding covenants in franchise agreement were enforceable

Concluding that "a reasonable factfinder could not find on this record that [Defendant] was not [Plaintiff's] employer" under ERISA

Holding that “[w]hether a franchisor owes a duty of care to its franchisee's employee ... turns on the extent of the franchisor's retained control over the property and the daily operation of the restaurant”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Specifying types of services considered to be not those performed by an employee and noting that an employer's failure to make withholdings or payments that would be required for an employee "shall not be considered in making a determination" as to a person's employee status

Requiring franchisors to furnish prospective franchisees with a "current disclosure document"