Kriebel v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that placement on performance improvement plan was not a constructive discharge when employee acknowledged that plan requirements “were largely fair and in conformance with what one would expect from an engineer”
• finding that an artist worked at Playboy’s instance when the company requested that the artist work on “specific assignments” and “illustrate particular articles”
• \[T]he phrase `specially ordered or commissioned' has essentially the same meaning as `instance and expense.'\
• “in contrast, where the creator of a work receives royalties as payment, that method of payment generally weighs against finding a work-for-hire relationship”
• “It appears, therefore, that the phrase ‘specially ordered or commissioned’ has essentially the same meaning as ‘instance and expense.””’
• wherein the court observed that royalty payments are not conclusive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).