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.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Texas Gulf, Inc.green2 sentences2025Meanwhile, the lent employee doctrine requires that “the work being done is essentially that of the special employer.” Id. at 636 (emphasis added) (quoting Collins, 21 N.C. 2016The lent employee doctrine requires the employee to have "made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the special employer." Id. at 635 , 351 S.E.2d at 109 . | 1 | 2 |
Collins v. James Paul Edwards, Inc.green2 sentences2025To satisfy the basic elements of the lent employee doctrine, it must be established that: “(a) the employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the [special] employer; (b) the work being done is essentially that of the [special] employer; and (c) the [special] employer has the right to control the details of the work.” Id.; see also Collins v. James Paul Edwards, Inc., 21 N.C. 2025Meanwhile, the lent employee doctrine requires that “the work being done is essentially that of the special employer.” Id. at 636 (emphasis added) (quoting Collins, 21 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whicker v. Compass Group USA, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020“Plaintiff may rely upon two doctrines to prove [he] is an employee of two different employers at the same time: the joint employment doctrine and the lent employee doctrine.” Whicker, 246 N.C. 2020“Plaintiff may rely upon two doctrines to prove [he] is an employee of two different employers at the same time: the joint employment doctrine and the lent employee doctrine.” Whicker, 246 N.C. | 3 | 2020–2023 |
Collins v. James Paul Edwards, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025App. 455, 459 , cert. denied, 285 N.C. 589 (1974). -7- LASSITER V. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.