Oestman v. National Farmers Union Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that requiring insurance agent to submit advertisements for pre-approval is not necessarily indicative of employee status because company has “substantial interest” in advertising reflecting company standards, even if advertisement issued by independent contractor
• affirming district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over ADEA claim brought by independent contractor
• fact that appellees did not withhold taxes from appellant’s pay and did not pay social security taxes for him supported finding that appellant was an independent contractor
• fact that appellant’s performance was “subject to virtually no restrictions” supported finding on summary judgment that he was an independent contractor and not an employee under ADEA; appellant set his own working hours and was generally free to work as he chose
• parties’ agreements indicated intent to create independent contractor relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).