Helen Larsen v. Empresas El Yunque, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the independent contractor defense applied where responsible party ran the “day-to-day operation of [a] restaurant” that was located on premises “owned and controlled by the United States”
• holding that the independent contractor defense applied where responsible party ran the “day-to-day operation of [a] restaurant” that was located on premises “owned and controlled by the United States”
• holding a suit against the Superior Court is a suit against the state and 16 are barred by the Eleventh Amendment
• concluding independent contractor exception applied where the responsible party ran the day-to-day operations, despite the United States owning and controlling the premises on which the challenged conduct occurred
• concluding contractor exception applied where government was “not involved in the day-to-day operation” and company was an “independent contractor with full control over the operation of the responsible for the condition of the [ ] premises”
• remanding for determination of benefits where panel was 16 “convinced that substantial evidence does not support the Secretary’s decision, and because 17 no legitimate reasons were advanced to justify disregard of the treating physician’s 18 opinion…”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).