Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 F.3d 32 - Bancker Construction Corp. v. Reich

Bancker Construction Corp. v. Reich’s Empirical Analysis

31 F.3d 32 · 1994

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2018

5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

60199420002010decided

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. § 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) · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Donovan v. Royal Logging Co. · Olin Construction Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Dole v. Williams Enterprises, Inc. · Brock v. Dun-Par Engineered Form Co.

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

  1. “(1) the hazards of compliance with [the] standard are greater than the hazards of noncompliance, (2) alternative means of protection are unavailable, and (3) a variance [(a procedure by which an employer formally requests an exception from OSHA regulations)] was unavailable or inappropriate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “that compliance with the standard's literal requirements was impossible or would have precluded performance of the work,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]t is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating an OSHA standard that compliance was impossible or infeasible,”
    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.