Mullins v. Ashland Oil, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “even in the light most favorable to 6 [the plaintiff], no evidence shows that [defendant] controlled, operated, or directed the operation of the trucks involved in the hauling operations at issue”
• concluding that it would take a “logical leap” to conclude that an “unexercised general right” to control a safety issue at a job site prevented the subcontractor from performing his work in his own way
• discussing personal knowledge requirement and holding corporate representative can gather knowledge from other corporate sources
• making of suggestions and recommendations to independent contractor does not give rise to liability
• making of suggestions and recommendations to independent contractor does not give rise to liability
• “Although the district court in [Harris] analyzed motor-carrier status under Federal Regulations, we find the reasoning in that case instructive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).