A. & E. Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Pitman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when an employer knows that a worker began performing job tasks prior to formal hiring, the board and the court may infer an employment relationship under ORS 656.005(30) as an implied-in-fact contract based on the par- ties’ conduct
• holding that when an employer knows that a worker began performing job tasks prior to formal hiring, the board and the court may infer an employment relationship under ORS 656.005(30) as an implied-in-fact contract based on the par- ties’ conduct
• noting that the existence of an implied contract depended on “whether [the] employer’s supervisory employees, whose knowledge may be imputed to [the] employer, knew that [the] claimant was working for, being directed by, and receiving compen- sation from [the] employer”
• noting that the existence of an implied contract depended on “whether [the] employer’s supervisory employees, whose knowledge may be imputed to [the] employer, knew that [the] claimant was working for, being directed by, and receiving compen- sation from [the] employer”
• “A contract for hire that satisfies the ‘engagement’ requirement of ORS 656.005(30) may be based on either an express or implied contract.”
• “A contract for hire that satisfies the ‘engagement’ requirement of ORS 656.005(30) may be based on either an express or implied contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).