Russell v. Bartley’s Empirical Analysis
494 F.2d 334 · 1974
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 90 Wash. 2d 323 - Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. (1978), Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. (1981)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 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)
Relies on 356 F. Supp. 670 - Skidmore v. Travelers Insurance Company · Hare v. Federal Compress and Warehouse Company · Skidmore v. Travelers Ins. · Savage v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Assuming without deciding that St. Regis may have violated the requirements of OSHA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Labor, we affirm the trial court’s charge and hold that no cause of action for such violations can be implied under OSHA to run in favor of a person who was not an employee of the violator against whom recovery is sought. . . . Nowhere in the language of the Act, its legislative history, or in the statutory declaration of purpose and policy in the Act itself is there the slightest implication that Congress considered OSHA creating a private right of action for violation of its terms. See 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 5177-5241; 29 U.S.C.A. § 651 . The only provision in the statute which addresses itself to a private remedy clearly indicates that Congress did not intend OSHA to create a new action for damages in favor of employees. Section 653(b)(4) of the Act provides that Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or in any manner affect any workmen’s compensation law or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or in the course of, employment. “It seems clear that Congress did not intend OSHA to create a new private cause of action, but, on the contrary, intended private rights to be unaffected thereby. . “We have been unable t”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Arguments not unlike those made by appellant were advanced in two cases emanating from the Fifth Circuit. Hare v. Federal Compress and Warehouse Co. , 359 F. Supp. 214 (N.D.Miss. 1973); Skidmore v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 356 F. Supp. 670 (E.D.La. 1973), aff'd per curiam, 483 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1973). In Hare the plaintiff sought to fix liability upon a property owner or the prime contractor who hired the subcontractor whose employee was killed as a result of alleged OSHA violations. The court dismissed this claim because `the act does not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no legislative history or case law to support appellant's proposition that OSHA created a private civil remedy and the clear language of § 653 (b)(4) of the Act specifically evidences a congressional intention to the contrary. Therefore, the District Court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was eminently correct.”
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.