Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the statute does not helpfully define the term “employee,” courts should apply its established meaning
• holding that “where a statute containing the term ‘employee’ does not helpfully define it, the common law agency test should be applied”
• holding that when a statute uses the term “employee” without defining it, common law agency principles must be applied
• noting that the same definition of “employee” in the ERISA statute is “completely circular and explains nothing”
• noting that identical definition of employee under FI RISA “is completely circular and explains nothing”
• stating that the same definition of employee in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(6), \is completely circular and explains nothing\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).