SUMMERLIN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Local 814 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 512 F.2d 564 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
  …1970); Frito-Lay, Inc. v. NLRB, 385 F. 2d 180, 187 (7th Cir. 1967); NLRB v. A. S. Abell Co., 327 F. 2d 1, 4 (4th Cir. 1964); Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. NLRB, 337 F. 2d 697, 698-99 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied sub nom. Local 612, Teamsters v. NLRB, 381 U.S. 903, 85 S.Ct. 1448, 14 L.Ed.2d 285 (1965). While there can be no doubt that Congress intended this “right of control” test to apply, I am impressed by the suggestion of counsel for Local 814 that the better test is one which determines “employee” statu…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Joint Council OF Teamsters NO. 42 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 450 F.2d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
  …plicitly or implicitly reserves the right to supervise the details of his work. See, e. g., Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 337 F. 2d 697 (5th Cir. 1964), cert, denied, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union 612 v. N.L.R.B., 381 U.S. 903, 85 S.Ct. 1448, 14 L.Ed.2d 285 (1965). Atkinson, in its contracts with Barker, had explicitly reserved the right to supervise the work of the owner-operators, and the record makes clear that the two other contractors in practice had exercised perv…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Zeeman v. United States, 395 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1968)
  …lved argument premised on the omission of the words “the taxpayer” from § 172 when the Code was revised in 1954. We did not regard that as a notable omission in Allied Central Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner, 339 F. 2d 503 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 903, 85 S.Ct. 1447, 14 L.Ed.2d 285 (1965), and we find no basis in the legislative history for concluding that Congress intended thereby to effect any substantive change in the basic purposes of the carryback provisions. See Beckett v. Commissioner, 41…