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.
7 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fritts v. Division of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2002Fritts v. Div. of Employment Sec., 11 S.W.3d 721, 724 (Mo.App. 2002Revenue Ruling 87-11, in determining whether an employment or independent contractor relationship exists.” Fritts v. Div. of Employment Sec., 11 S.W.3d 721, 724 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
E.P.M. Inc. v. Buckmangreen1 sentence2016Inc. v. Buckman, 300 S.W.3d 510, 514 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Pearson v. Kostergreen1 sentence2013Revenue Ruling 87-41 to determine whether an employment or independent contractor relationship existed. “[T]he construction of constitutional provisions,” however, “is not to be a hyper-technical process.” Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36, 48 (Mo. banc 2012). | 1 | 1 |
K & D Auto Body, Inc. v. Division of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2009“Missouri courts routinely apply the twenty-factor test in determining the nature of the employment relationship for purposes of tax liability, and those factors have been consistently used as an aid for determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor under the common law rules.” K & D Auto Body, Inc., 171 S.W.3d at 104 (internal quotation, citation, and punctuation omitted). 2009“The factors are not intended to serve as a bright-line rule with no flexibility, but rather are indices of control to assist the employer in attempting, for tax purposes, to determine the common law employment status of its workers.” Id. at 106 (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erectiongreen1 sentence2005W.D.2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 225 (Mo. banc 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Bedford Falls Co. v. Division of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Travelers Equities, 927 S.W.2d at 921-25 , and Bedford Falls Co. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 998 S.W.2d 851, 857-60 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Equities Sales, Inc. v. Division of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Travelers Equities, 927 S.W.2d at 921-25 , and Bedford Falls Co. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 998 S.W.2d 851, 857-60 (Mo.App. 2001Whether using the twenty-factor test or the “3-eategory” approach, “the bedrock is still the common law agency test of the right to control the manner and means of performance.” Travelers Equities, 927 S.W.2d at 925 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Klausner v. Brockman
green
1 sentence2005“Missouri courts routinely apply the twenty-factor test in determining the nature of the employment relationship for purposes of tax liability,” id, and those factors “have been consistently used as an aid for determining whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor under the common law rules[.]” Klausner v. Brockman, 58 S.W.3d 671 , 679 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Stover Delivery System, Inc. v. Division of Employment Security
green
1 sentence2002Stover, 11 S.W.3d at 696 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.