Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 F.3d 188 - Tavarez v. Klingensmith

Tavarez v. Klingensmith’s Empirical Analysis

372 F.3d 188 · 2004

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 48 U.S.C. § 1613A

Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Duncan v. Walker · United States v. Menasche · Whitman Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency v. American Trucking Associations Inc · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker

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

  1. “Where the statutory language does not express [the legislature's] intent unequivocally, a court traditionally refers to the legislative history and the atmosphere in which the statute was enacted in an attempt to determine the congressional purpose.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must look to the surrounding words and provisions and their context,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he Appellate Division of the District Court determined that Klingensmith was immune from liability because the duty which he breached, by refusing to change the tire, was the employer’s non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace. This rationale is consistent with the statutory scheme of the [VIWCA] and general principles of agency law. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 492 (1958); Tunis Bros. Co. [v. Ford Motor Co., 763 F.2d 1482 ,] 1496 n. 21 [(3d Cir. 1985)] (observing that corporation can act only through its agents). Thus, we conclude that the immunity afforded to an employer under the [VIWCA] also shields a supervisor from personal liability for harm caused by his negligent failure to provide a safe workplace for the employer’s workers.”
    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.