Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, 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 “[s]tudents engage[d] in courses of study that have been considered and approved of by the state accrediting agency” were not employees of the eldercare facility in which they worked
• finding that the program benefitted students by teaching them “a strong work ethic” and “leadership skills”
• recognizing special conditions on supervised release imposed under § 3583(d) “must be supported by individualized findings about [their] appropriateness for that particular defendant”
• finding that students benefitted from “courses of study that have been considered and approved of by the state accrediting agency”
• noting that “[t]he district court found,that Laurelbrook students do not displace compensated workers, and instructors must spend extra time supervising the students at the expense of performing productive work.”
• finding that the school would not operate the sanitarium if the students did not work there because the sanitarium’s “sole purpose is to serve as a training vehicle for its students”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).