Clayton doctor v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under Maryland law, “when a general provision seemingly conflicts with a specific provision, [courts] give effect to the specific provision.” (citing Heist v. Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB, 165 Md. App. 144, 151, 884 A.2d 1224 (2005))
• rejecting argument that the owner of a company, who had the power to hire and fire, was not an “employer” because he did not “actually exercise that power”
• noting same four factors are used for “employer” determinations under MWHL and MWPCL
• applying economic reality test to claims under the state wage statutes
• explaining the four-factor, economic reality test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).