Legal Opinion

Olmstead v. Shakespeare

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 19, 2003No. 25655PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice TOAL:

Petitioner, Shakespeare, appeals from the Court of Appeals’ decision finding that Respondent, Charles Olmstead (“Olmstead”), is not Shakespeare’s statutory employee.

Factual/Procedural Background

Olmstead owned and operated a truck and trailer that he leased to his employer, Hot Shot Express (“Hot Shot”). Hot Shot dispatched Olmstead to various places to pick up and deliver goods and materials. Hot Shot paid Olmstead after he completed delivery based on the number of miles he had driven.

Hot Shot sent Olmstead to pick up a load of fiberglass utility poles from Shakespeare’s…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Caton v. Winslow Bros. & Smith Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  2. Glass v. Dow Chemical Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  3. Ost v. Integrated Products, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1988
  4. Neese v. Michelin Tire Corp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1996
  5. Abbott v. the Limited, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2000

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Edens v. BelliniCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
  2. Hernandez-Zuniga v. TickleCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
  3. Sallie Zeigler v. Eastman Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2022
  4. Posey v. Proper Mold & Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
  5. Keene v. CNA Holdings, LLCCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2019

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

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

Powered by the Exa API