53 Md. App. 640 - Murphy v. Stuart M. Smith, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2011
2 district · 15 state decisions
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)
Relies on Greenwood v. United States · 90 Wash. 2d 323 - Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. · 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 · Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. · Wendland v. Ridgefield Construction Services, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]e are a Court purposed to decide cases on the facts presented rather than proclaim in black letter the applicability of law for all purposes.... It will suffice that under the facts of this case the Maryland Act is clearly limited, placing the duty on the ‘employer’ for the benefit of ‘his employees.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The third and final circumstance relates to owners or employers who have either actually created a hazardous condition which violated specific OSHA regulations and to which its own and another’s employees were exposed, Wendland v. Ridgefield Const. Services, Inc., [ 184 Conn. 173 ] 439 A.2d 954 (Conn.1981), or had actual and substantial physical control over the work area, and actual responsibility for the hazardous condition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“creating employer” exception did not apply to the facts in Murphy because “Smith [the subcontractor] did not create and did not have actual physical control of alleged inadequate lighting conditions at the pick-up point.” Murphy, 53 Md.App. at 643 , 455 A.2d at 71 (holding that”
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.