Venters v. Sorrento Delaware, 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 Sorrento qualified as a statutory employer of Venters “simply because of its contractual relationship with 3-C Trucking,” the company which employed Venters
• holding that Sorrento qualified as a statutory employer of Venters “simply because of its contractual relationship with 3-C Trucking,” the company which employed Venters
• employee bringing equal protection constitutional claim lacked standing when he was not a member of the class at issue, employers
• Sorrento qualified as a statutory employer of Venters “simply because of its contractual relationship with 3-C Trucking”
• “[T]he Venters have identified and are arguing for a class of which they are not a member and, therefore, they have no standing_”
• employee bringing equal protection constitutional claim lacked standing when he was not a member of the class at issue, employers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).