Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 Mont. 67 - Thornock v. State

Thornock v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Kitchen Krafters, Inc. v. Eastside Bank (1990), National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n v. Killian (1990)

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

19019871990200020102020decided

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. § 653 (§ 4 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. § 657 (§ 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 667 (§ 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 42 U.S.C. § 2013

Relies on Jones v. Rath Packing Co. · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · Silkwood v. Corporation · United States v. Bailey · Woods v. Texas

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.

  1. “It is plain from reading the Occupational Safety and Health Act that Congress intended to occupy the field of assuring worker safety. Congress accomplished this by setting minimum federal standards that all employers must meet. Thornock’s argument that Congress did not occupy the field because it expressly included provisions in OSHA by which the various states could resume workers safety programs is not persuasive. In order to retain the right to set and enforce work safety rules, a state must submit to the Secretary of Labor a plan that is “at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the standards promulgated under section 655 ...” 29 U.S.C. § 667 (c)(2). So while states may choose to exercise work safety programs, they may do so only on the federal government’s terms. This field has been occupied by federal law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.