right to control test (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

right to control test in New Jersey

7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
D'Annunzio v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen
nj · 2007 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015“Our courts have long recognized that, in certain settings, exclusive reliance on a traditional right-to-control test to identify who is an ‘employee’ does not necessarily result in the identifica *594 tion of all those workers that social legislation seeks to reach.” D’ Annunzio, supra, 192 N.J. at 121 , 927 A.2d 113 .

2015“Our courts have long recognized that, in certain settings, exclusive reliance on a traditional right-to-control test to identify who is an ‘employee’ does not necessarily result in the identifica *594 tion of all those workers that social legislation seeks to reach.” D’ Annunzio, supra, 192 N.J. at 121 , 927 A.2d 113 .

12
American Insurance Company v. Fairchild Industries, Incorporatedgreen
ca2 · 1995 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021A-3011-18 29 Rather, the court concluded "it suffices for an indemnitor afforded the right to control the defense of an indemnifiable claim to show that it was deprived of its right to exercise that right for a material portion of the proceedings on the claim." Id. at 524.

2021Applying this standard, the court found that the twenty-one-month period, which included an adverse decision, "more than [met] the standard of a material deprivation of the right to control the defense of the audit." Ibid.

11
Lieberman v. Employers Insurance of Wausaugreen
njsuperctappdiv · 1979 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987Co., 65 N.J. 474, 492 (1974); Lieberman v. Employer's Insurance of Wausau, 171 N.J.

11
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of Americagreen
nj · 1974 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987Co., 65 N.J. 474, 492 (1974); Lieberman v. Employer's Insurance of Wausau, 171 N.J.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Marcus v. Eastern Agricultural Ass'n, Inc. green
njsuperctappdiv · 1959
2 sentences

2015For example, where the type of work requires little supervision over details for its proper prosecution and the person performing it is so experienced that instructions concerning such details would be superfluous, ... the factor of control becomes inconclusive, and reorientation toward a correct legal conclusion must be sought by resort to more realistically significant criteria. [Id. at 122, 927 A.2d 113 (quoting Marcus, supra, 58 N.J.Super. at 597 , 157 A.2d 3 (Conford, J.A.D., dissenting)).] In D’Annunzio , we noted in the context of a claim under Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEP

2015For example, where the type of work requires little supervision over details for its proper prosecution and the person performing it is so experienced that instructions concerning such details would be superfluous, ... the factor of control becomes inconclusive, and reorientation toward a correct legal conclusion must be sought by resort to more realistically significant criteria. [Id. at 122, 927 A.2d 113 (quoting Marcus, supra, 58 N.J.Super. at 597 , 157 A.2d 3 (Conford, J.A.D., dissenting)).] In D’Annunzio , we noted in the context of a claim under Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEP

12015–2015
MacDougall v. Weichert green
nj · 1996
2 sentences

2007In Feldman, supra, 187 N.J. at 241 , 901 A.2d 322 , when we considered the term’s application in the context of a shareholder-director of a professional corporation, we specifically instructed courts to “look to the goals underlying CEPA and focus not on labels but on the reality of plaintiffs relationship with the party against whom the CEPA claim is advanced.” See also MacDougall v. Weichert, 144 N.J. 380, 388 , 677 A.2d 162 (1996) (emphasizing same for Pierce wrongful discharge claim). any individual who performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or o

2007In Feldman, supra, 187 N.J. at 241 , 901 A.2d 322 , when we considered the term’s application in the context of a shareholder-director of a professional corporation, we specifically instructed courts to “look to the goals underlying CEPA and focus not on labels but on the reality of plaintiffs relationship with the party against whom the CEPA claim is advanced.” See also MacDougall v. Weichert, 144 N.J. 380, 388 , 677 A.2d 162 (1996) (emphasizing same for Pierce wrongful discharge claim). any individual who performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or o

12007–2007
Stomel v. City of Camden procedural
njsuperctappdiv · 2006
2 sentences

2007Stomel, supra, 383 N.J.Super. at 636 , 893 A. 2d 32 ("A simple application of the control test would be inappropriate under these circumstances.").

2007Stomel, supra, 383 N.J.Super. at 636 , 893 A. 2d 32 ("A simple application of the control test would be inappropriate under these circumstances.").

12007–2007
Feldman v. Hunterdon Radiological Associates green
nj · 2006
2 sentences

2007In Feldman, supra, 187 N.J. at 241 , 901 A.2d 322 , when we considered the term’s application in the context of a shareholder-director of a professional corporation, we specifically instructed courts to “look to the goals underlying CEPA and focus not on labels but on the reality of plaintiffs relationship with the party against whom the CEPA claim is advanced.” See also MacDougall v. Weichert, 144 N.J. 380, 388 , 677 A.2d 162 (1996) (emphasizing same for Pierce wrongful discharge claim). any individual who performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or o

2007In Feldman, supra, 187 N.J. at 241 , 901 A.2d 322 , when we considered the term’s application in the context of a shareholder-director of a professional corporation, we specifically instructed courts to “look to the goals underlying CEPA and focus not on labels but on the reality of plaintiffs relationship with the party against whom the CEPA claim is advanced.” See also MacDougall v. Weichert, 144 N.J. 380, 388 , 677 A.2d 162 (1996) (emphasizing same for Pierce wrongful discharge claim). any individual who performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or o

12007–2007
Rutherford v. Modern Transp. Co. green
njsuperctappdiv · 1974
1 sentence

1978Although the courts have lately placed greater reliance upon the latter test, Rutherford v. Modern Transport Co., supra, 128 N.J.

11978–1978

Where else courts name it

OR 23 (1980–2014) CA 23 (1999–2022) IL 16 (1976–2021) ID 15 (1983–2026) TX 14 (1960–2024) CT 11 (1997–2019) NM 9 (1995–2015) WI 8 (1986–2021) NJ 7 (1978–2021) WA 7 (2012–2024) VT 6 (2004–2025) OH 6 (1984–2023) UT 6 (1995–2022) SC 5 (2011–2023) AZ 5 (1986–2019) NY 5 (1981–2013) ND 4 (1967–1991) ME 4 (1985–2014) MO 3 (1992–2007) KS 3 (2009–2019) GA 2 (2013–2015) MA 2 (1996–2020) MD 2 (1997–1997) LA 2 (1995–2007) IA 2 (2025–2025) HI 2 (1998–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check