integral test (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

integral test in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1978–1991 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Olvera v. Del's Auto Bodygreen
idaho · 1990 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991Olvera v. Del's Auto Body, 118 Idaho 163, 165 , 795 P.2d 862, 864 (1990) (citations omitted).

1991Olvera v. Del's Auto Body, 118 Idaho 163, 165 , 795 P.2d 862, 864 (1990) (citations omitted).

11
Burns v. Nyberggreen
idaho · 1985 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Burdick v. Thornton, 109 Idaho 869 , 712 P.2d 570 (1985); Burns v. Nyberg, 108 Idaho 151 , 697 P.2d 1165 *465 (1985); Ledesma v. Bergeson, 99 Idaho 555 , 585 P.2d 965 (1978); Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410 , 353 P.2d 657 (1960).

1987Burdick v. Thornton, 109 Idaho 869 , 712 P.2d 570 (1985); Burns v. Nyberg, 108 Idaho 151 , 697 P.2d 1165 *465 (1985); Ledesma v. Bergeson, 99 Idaho 555 , 585 P.2d 965 (1978); Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410 , 353 P.2d 657 (1960).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Ledesma v. Bergeson green
idaho · 1978
2 sentences

1986The integral test then is whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner and *778 method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract. [Citations omitted.] As in Ledesma, supra, 99 Idaho at 557 , 585 P.2d at 967 , so, too, here, our “only question ... is whether the Industrial Commission made a proper application of law to [the] evidence.” Id.

1986The integral test then is whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner and *778 method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract. [Citations omitted.] As in Ledesma, supra, 99 Idaho at 557 , 585 P.2d at 967 , so, too, here, our “only question ... is whether the Industrial Commission made a proper application of law to [the] evidence.” Id.

21986–1987
Sines v. Sines green
idaho · 1986
2 sentences

1990Sines v. Sines, 110 Idaho 776 , 718 P.2d 1214 (1986).

1990Sines v. Sines, 110 Idaho 776 , 718 P.2d 1214 (1986).

11990–1990
Burdick v. Thornton green
idaho · 1985
2 sentences

1987Burdick v. Thornton, 109 Idaho 869 , 712 P.2d 570 (1985); Burns v. Nyberg, 108 Idaho 151 , 697 P.2d 1165 *465 (1985); Ledesma v. Bergeson, 99 Idaho 555 , 585 P.2d 965 (1978); Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410 , 353 P.2d 657 (1960).

1987Burdick v. Thornton, 109 Idaho 869 , 712 P.2d 570 (1985); Burns v. Nyberg, 108 Idaho 151 , 697 P.2d 1165 *465 (1985); Ledesma v. Bergeson, 99 Idaho 555 , 585 P.2d 965 (1978); Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410 , 353 P.2d 657 (1960).

11987–1987
Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co. green
idaho · 1960
2 sentences

1987Burdick v. Thornton, 109 Idaho 869 , 712 P.2d 570 (1985); Burns v. Nyberg, 108 Idaho 151 , 697 P.2d 1165 *465 (1985); Ledesma v. Bergeson, 99 Idaho 555 , 585 P.2d 965 (1978); Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410 , 353 P.2d 657 (1960).

1987Burdick v. Thornton, 109 Idaho 869 , 712 P.2d 570 (1985); Burns v. Nyberg, 108 Idaho 151 , 697 P.2d 1165 *465 (1985); Ledesma v. Bergeson, 99 Idaho 555 , 585 P.2d 965 (1978); Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co., 82 Idaho 410 , 353 P.2d 657 (1960).

11987–1987
Anderson v. Gailey green
idaho · 1976
2 sentences

1984Accordingly, the trial court erred in this case by instructing the jury in Instruction No. 31: “The integral test [of employer under I.C. § 72-102(10)] is whether the contract gives, or Shearer Lumber Products, Inc., assumed, the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract.” The right-to-control test is relevant in determining whether the injured person is an employee covered by workmen’s compensation, or whether the person is an independent contractor not entitled

1984Accordingly, the trial court erred in this case by instructing the jury in Instruction No. 31: “The integral test [of employer under I.C. § 72-102(10)] is whether the contract gives, or Shearer Lumber Products, Inc., assumed, the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract.” The right-to-control test is relevant in determining whether the injured person is an employee covered by workmen’s compensation, or whether the person is an independent contractor not entitled

11984–1984
Alexander-Bland Lumber Co. v. Jenkins green
gactapp · 1953
2 sentences

1978Alexander-Bland Lumber Co. v. Jenkins, 87 Ga.App. 678, 75 S.E.2d 355 (1953); Medford Lumber Co. v. Mahner, 197 Wis. 35 , 221 N.W. 390 (1928).

1978Alexander-Bland Lumber Co. v. Jenkins, 87 Ga.App. 678, 75 S.E.2d 355 (1953); Medford Lumber Co. v. Mahner, 197 Wis. 35 , 221 N.W. 390 (1928).

11978–1978
Medford Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission neutral
wis · 1928
2 sentences

1978Alexander-Bland Lumber Co. v. Jenkins, 87 Ga.App. 678, 75 S.E.2d 355 (1953); Medford Lumber Co. v. Mahner, 197 Wis. 35 , 221 N.W. 390 (1928).

1978Alexander-Bland Lumber Co. v. Jenkins, 87 Ga.App. 678, 75 S.E.2d 355 (1953); Medford Lumber Co. v. Mahner, 197 Wis. 35 , 221 N.W. 390 (1928).

11978–1978

Where else courts name it

ID 6 (1978–1991) ME 5 (1960–2010) OK 2 (1956–1973) NY 2 (1998–1998) CA 2 (2014–2014) PA 2 (2021–2025)

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