Orr v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably State v. Burch (2008), W.R. Grace & Co v. Chakarian (2009)
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 36 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 30 U.S.C. § 955
Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc. · Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“State subject to suit. The state, counties, cities, towns, and all other local governmental entities shall have no immunity from suit for injury to a person or property, except as may be specifically provided by law by a 2 ¡3 vote of each house of the legislature.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“During each State inspection between 1956 and 1974, the State inspectors found unsanitary and unhealthful conditions. The State notified Zonolite 13 , and later Grace, of the dangerous conditions after each inspection, explaining the seriousness of asbestosis and its likely fatal outcome, but did not inform the Mine workers, including the Miners, of the dangers. With the exception of identifying the hazardous conditions and telling the Mine’s owner/managers to correct the problems, the State took no steps to ensure that the Mine’s owners/managers responded in a manner that provided a safe working environment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) by a statute intended to protect a specific class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member from a particular type of harm; (2) when a government agent undertakes specific action to protect a person or property; (3) by governmental actions that reasonably induce detrimental reliance by a member of the public; and (4) under certain circumstances, when the agency has actual custody of the plaintiff or of a third person who causes harm to the plaintiff.”
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.