Anton v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

How courts have described this case

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

• Noting that the contractor served “as little more than a conduit” of the woodcutters’ finished product and that “supplying pulpwood . . . was not merely in the regular course of [the contractor’s] business, it was [the contractor’s] business.”
• focusing on “right to control” in determining that injured claimant was an employee rather than an independent contractor
• appellate court must make an independent determination of a person’s status as an employee or independent contractor
• if the type of work done “is an integral part of the employer’s regular business,” it “bears heavily on the question of whether the [worker] is an employee or an independent contractor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).