Legal Opinion

Sortino v. Miller

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1983No. 82-609PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

This is an appeal from a finding on rehearing by the Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Court that the plaintiff, Michael L. Sortino, failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an employer-employee relationship between himself and the defendants. The compensation court found Sortino was not acting as an employee of the defendants but, rather, more in the character of an independent contractor; therefore, Sortino was not entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits from the defendants for injuries he sustained while working. We agree.

Sortino has assigned several errors to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Stephens v. Celeryvale Transport, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Voycheske v. OsbornNebraska Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Renshaw v. Merrigol-Adler BakeryNebraska Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Shaw v. Gooch Feed Mill Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Williams v. Williams Janitorial ServiceNebraska Supreme Court · 1980

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Eden v. SpauldingNebraska Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Hemmerling v. Happy Cab Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Minshall v. Plains Manufacturing Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Franklin v. PawleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Gregg v. ChallburgNebraska Supreme Court · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API