Silvester v. Silvestrelli

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sherman & Fletcher, 705 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Ky. 1986)
• “[N]o further discovery was needed to determine whether this type of work was ‘regular’ or ‘recurrent[.]’”
• “Persons or entities who engage another to perform a part of the work which is a recurrent part of their business, trade, or occupation are considered ‘contractors’ under the Act even if they never perform that type of work with their own employees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).