Reliance National Indemnity Co. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that factual determinations receive more deferential review based on sufficiency of evidence
• concluding that even though the employer did not control the details of the work at the construction site, it did not cease being the employees’ employer and the borrowed-employee tort doctrine did not suggest otherwise because the case “is one of contract”
• noting appellate courts review legal determinations de novo and concluding “[w]hat might otherwise be a question of fact becomes one of law when the fact is not in dispute or is conclusively established”
• “Appellate courts review legal determinations de novo, whereas factual determinations receive more deferential review based on the sufficiency of the evidence.”
• “Appellate courts review legal determinations de novo, whereas factual determinations receive more deferential review based on the sufficiency of the evidence.”
• “Appellate courts review legal determinations de novo, whereas factual determinations receive more deferential review based on the sufficiency of the evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).