Reich v. Trinity Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.3d 1149 · 1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999), 91 Wash. App. 1 - King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 654 (§ 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 655 (§ 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 658 (§ 9 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 660 (§ 11 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Rich v. United States · American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar · Georgia Electric Co. v. Marshall · Intercounty Construction Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commision
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he definition of `willful' in this circuit is, in its simplest form, `an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, OSHA requirements.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court reviews the Commission's order to determine whether it is in accordance with the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where a specific duty standard contains the method by which the work hazard is to be abated, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that the remedy contained in the regulation is infeasible under the particular circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.