State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Rooks

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that proof that “Claimant could work for others does not establish that he engaged in an independent business, and did work for others.”
• concluding that proof that “Claimant could work for others does not establish that he engaged in an independent business, and did work for others.”
• holding that without evidence that the claimant established an independent business or performed the same services for others, the employer could not establish the second prong of the test to overcome the statutory presumption of employment
• explaining that an employer must show “that the work was done for others, not just the employer, as part of an independent trade” in overcoming the statutory presumption of employment
• “despite the fact the claimant could work for others, the evidence did not show the claimant was customarily engaged in an independent business”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).