Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 SW3D 36 - Hargis v. Baize

Hargis v. Baize’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
4
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 653 (§ 4 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 654 (§ 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970)

Relies on Davis Coal Co. v. Polland · Grzyb v. Evans · Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and Underhill Construction Corporation, Underhill Construction Corp. And Dic Concrete Corp., Individually and as Participants in a Joint Venture Known as Dic-Underhill, a Joint Venture v. Peter J. Brennan and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Reeder · Grayson Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie No. 3738, Inc. v. Claywell

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) it explicitly expresses an intention to exonerate by using the word "negligence;" or (2) it clearly and specifically indicates an intent to release a party from liability for a personal injury caused by that party's own conduct; or (3) protection against negligence is the only reasonable construction of the contract language; or (4) the hazard experienced was clearly within the contemplation of the provision.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture is imposed for such violation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We believe that Congress [the General Assembly] enacted Sec. 654(a)(2) [KRS 338.031(l)(b) ] for the special benefit of all employees, including the employees of an independent contractor, who perform work at another employer’s workplace. The specific duty clause represents the primary means for furthering Congress’ purpose of assuring ‘so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.’ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 651 (b). The broad remedial nature of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 is the Act’s primary characteristic.”
    2 later decisions 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.