Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 495 F.2d 822 - Rea Express, Inc. v. Brennan

Rea Express, Inc. v. Brennan’s Empirical Analysis

495 F.2d 822 · 1974

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
3
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and Underhill Construction Corporation, Underhill Construction Corp. And Dic Concrete Corp., Individually and as Participants in a Joint Venture Known as Dic-Underhill, a Joint Venture v. Peter J. Brennan and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (1975), Brennan v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (1975)

38 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

44019741980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · National Realty & Construction Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and Gerosa, Incorporated · Nadiak v. Civil Aeronautics Board

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

  1. ““An employer must take reasonable precautionary steps to protect its employees from reasonably foreseeable recognized dangers that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical injury. And precautionary steps, of course, include the employer’s providing an adequate safety and training program. See the ‘general duty’ clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1).” (Maryland Counterpart Art. 89, § 32(a).)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In view of the clear purpose of the statute to set new standards of industrial safety, we cannot accept the proposition that common law defenses such as assumption of the risk or contributory negligence will exculpate the employer who is charged with violating the Act.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “revolutionary piece of labor legislation,”
    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.