MacCorkle v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that providing “work orders, blueprints and specifications” was control over the manner of floor installers’ work (emphasis omitted)
• agreeing with findings of fact that employer was specific about nature and quality of finished product desired, employer regulated quality of work but didn’t supervise the work, and customer turned to employer if there was a problem with the work
• carpet installers were provided with suggested positions for seams and other details of installation
• liability for workers compensation premiums: “We conclude, under the facts found, that employer had the right to exercise control over how the installations were done, and in most cases exercised that control through the use of specifications in the work order.”
• liability for workers compensation premiums: “We conclude, under the facts found, that employer had the right to exercise control over how the installations were done, and in most cases exercised that control through the use of specifications in the work order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).