Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2016Id. ¶ 16 Our review here is under the clearly erroneous standard, as our supreme court has previously determined that “whether certain workers are independent contractors under section 212 of the Act is such a mixed question of law and fact, subject to review for clear error.” Id (citing AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 396 (2001)). 2016Id. ¶ 16 Our review here is under the clearly erroneous standard, as our supreme court has previously determined that “whether certain workers are independent contractors under section 212 of the Act is such a mixed question of law and fact, subject to review for clear error.” Id. (citing AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 396 (2001)). | 2 | 8 |
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.green2 sentences2015Carpetland U.S.A., 201 Ill. 2d at 369 (quoting AFM Messenger Service, Inc., 198 Ill. 2d at 395 , quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). ¶ 39 Our review here is under the clearly erroneous standard, as our supreme court has previously determined that "whether certain workers are independent contractors under section 212 of the Act is such a mixed question of law and fact, subject to review for clear error." Carpetland U.S.A., 201 Ill. 2d at 369 (citing AFM Messenger Service, 198 Ill. 2d at 396 ). 2015Carpetland U.S.A., 201 Ill. 2d at 369 (quoting AFM Messenger Service, 198 Ill. 2d at 395 , quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). ¶ 39 Our review here is under the clearly erroneous standard, as our supreme court has previously determined that “whether certain workers are independent contractors under section 212 of the Act is such a mixed question of law and fact, subject to review for clear error.” Carpetland U.S.A., 201 Ill. 2d at 369 (citing AFM Messenger Service, 198 Ill. 2d at 396 ). | 2 | 2 |
Western Ports v. Employment SEC. Dept.green1 sentence2014See also Western Ports, 41 P.3d at 520 (holding that the “only employment defined by the [unemployment insurance] act is the employment intended to be covered by the act for the purpose of the act and none other”). ¶ 70 Similarly, in the present case, section 212(B)’s definition of independent contractor is for purposes of the Act only and none other; thus, in upholding the Director’s determination that Mr. Park was in covered employment with CRE under sections 206 and 207 of the Act and not an independent contractor under section 212(B) of the Act, the effect is only to determine that Mr. Par | 1 | 1 |
SMRJ, INC. v. Russellgreen1 sentence2014SMRJ, Inc. v. Russell, 378 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences2016Id. ¶ 16 Our review here is under the clearly erroneous standard, as our supreme court has previously determined that “whether certain workers are independent contractors under section 212 of the Act is such a mixed question of law and fact, subject to review for clear error.” Id. (citing AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 396 (2001)). 2016Id. ¶ 16 Our review here is under the clearly erroneous standard, as our supreme court has previously determined that “whether certain workers are independent contractors under section 212 of the Act is such a mixed question of law and fact, subject to review for clear error.” Id. (citing AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 396 (2001)). | 5 | 2009–2016 |
Jack Bradley, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences2016Jack Bradley, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d at 80 . 2016Jack Bradley, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d at 80 . | 4 | 2007–2016 |
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security
green
2 sentences2001With one justice dissenting, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, which had confirmed the decisions of the Director and Board, agreeing that AFM had failed to establish that its drivers were independent contractors under section 212. 315 Ill. 2001With one justice dissenting, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, which had confirmed the decisions of the Director and Board, agreeing that AFM had failed to establish that its drivers were independent contractors under section 212. 315 Ill. | 3 | 2001–2005 |
Ross v. Cummins
green
2 sentences2007Jack Bradley, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d at 80 ; Ross v. Cummins, 7 Ill. 2d 595, 601 , 131 N.E.2d 521 (1956). 2007Jack Bradley, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d at 80 ; Ross v. Cummins, 7 Ill. 2d 595, 601 , 131 N.E.2d 521 (1956). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Chicago Messenger Service v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2014Id. ¶ 58 The Director ultimately found, in pertinent part, that CMS had not proved that the couriers were independent contractors under section 212(B). 2014Id. at 102-03 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.