Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Co., Inc. (1978)
green
· 48 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 8 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198520052026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Bailey v. Tektronix, Inc. (2022)
Section 652.210—a section adjacent to § 652.150 that relates to discriminatory wage practices, see Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Co., 574 P.2d 1107, 1111 (Or. 1978) (using § 652.210 to assist in construing the term “employee” under § 652.150)}—defines “wages” as “all compensation for performance of service by an employee for an employer... □□ Or.
using § 652.210 to assist in construing the term “employee” under § 652.150
green
BDO Seidman, LLP v. Bee (2010)
Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Co., Inc., 281 Or. 307 , 574 P.2d 1107, 1111 (1978). 4 . § 448.104 shifts attorney's fees and costs in favor of the prevailing party in a so-called "whistleblower” action.
green
Travis v. Knappenberger (2001)
Co., 141 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir.1998) (court upheld district court’s grant of summary judgment regarding employee/independent contractor issue when facts not in dispute); Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Co., 281 Or. 307, 312-13 , 574 P.2d 1107, 1111 (1978) (plaintiffs employee status is a question of law when facts are undisputed).
plaintiffs employee status is a question of law when facts are undisputed
green
Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc. (2020)
Motor Ass’n, 248 Or 133, 138 , 432 P2d 512 (1967)); see also Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Co., Inc., 281 Or 307, 313 , 574 P2d 1107 (1978) (concluding that the “central purpose” of the wage statutes—including ORS 652.200—is “that of assuring that one who works in a mas- ter and servant relationship, usually with a disparity of eco- nomic power existing between himself and his superior, shall be assured of prompt payment for his labors when the rela- tionship is terminated”).
green
Nkrumah v. City of Portland (2014)
See Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Company, Inc., 281 Or 307, 312-13 , 574 P2d 1107 (1978) (noting inability to find applicable statutory definition of “employee” for purposes of ORS 652.140, ORS 652.150, and ORS 652.200(2) and using definitions of “employee” in ORS 652.210(2) and ORS 652.310(2), neither of which, strictly speaking, apply in an action for unpaid wages, to determine whether the plaintiff was an employee or a co-partner); see also ORS 652.310(2) (defining “employee” fo…
noting inability to find applicable statutory definition of “employee” for purposes of ORS 652.140, ORS 652.150, and ORS 652.200(2) and using definitions of “employee” in ORS 652.210(2) and ORS 652.310(2
green
Barbara Parmenter Living Trust v. Lemon (2008)
As this court has explained in considering statutes similar to ORS 90.255, “[t]he obvious purpose of th[os]e statute[s] is to encourage settlement of damage claims where the amount involved is not large.” Heen v. Kaufman, 258 Or 6, 8 , 480 P2d 701 (1971) (describing purpose of ORS 20.080(1)); see also Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Company, Inc., 281 Or 307, 313 , 574 P2d 1107 (1978) (noting that the purpose of attorney fee provision in ORS 652.200 for unpaid wages is to “assur[e] th…
noting that the purpose of attorney fee provision in ORS 652.200 for unpaid wages is to “assur[e] that one who works in a master and servant relationship, usually with a disparity of economic power * * * shall be assured of prompt payment.”
green
Hurger v. Hyatt Lake Resort, Inc. (2000)
See Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Company, Inc., 281 Or 307 , 574 P2d 1107 (1978).
green
Pope v. Judicial Department (1986)
See Lamy v. Jack Jarvis & Company, Inc., 281 Or 307, 312 , 574 P2d 1107 (1978) (defining “employee”); Helker v. Sabre Construction Co., 265 Or 552, 557 , 510 P2d 347 (1973) (defining “wages”).
defining “employee”