Legal Opinion

Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 30, 2011No. A131440PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MARCHIANO, P. J.

Plaintiff Kimbly Arnold worked as a nonexclusive insurance agent for Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Mutual). After plaintiff terminated her contractual relationship with Mutual, she filed suit claiming unpaid employee entitlements under the Labor Code.1 She appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Mutual, in which the trial court determined Ms. Arnold’s causes of action depended on her being a former “employee” of Mutual, and the undisputed facts established she was not an employee, but rather an independent contractor. Arnold claims the court erred in…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400California Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  4. S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial RelationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Reynolds v. BementCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2018
  2. Alexander v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  3. Jackson v. AEG Live, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Fred Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
  5. Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015

20 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