Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, Intervenors. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company and Winston-Salem Southbound Railway Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and William J. Usery, Jr., Secretary of Labor, American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations and United Transportation Union, Intervenors’s Empirical Analysis
548 F.2d 1052 · 1976
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2013
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Relies on Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Usery · Southern Railway Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]othing in this chapter [enforcing OSHA requirements] shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies * * * exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think the progression by FRA to the publication of an initial Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 15, 1976 is similarly lacking in force to terminate OSHA applicability. Preemption may, of course, eventually occur as to those areas covered by any regulations promulgated as a result of the proceeding, but we see no Congressional purpose in 4(b)(1) to treat a proposal to act as action itself. “If the Federal Railroad Administration wishes, in the fullest reach of its statutory authority, to assume the dominant role in determining the health and safety aspects of the working conditions of railroad employees, Congress has opened for it an avenue to that end. But Congress did not contemplate that there would be no regulation whatever while the FRA is still considering what road to take, nor does a single step down that road carry preemption further than that step itself.” (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is clear that Congress attached great importance to the safety and health protections of employees afforded by OSHA and, in particular, to the desirability of bringing those protections to bear upon employees generally as fast as possible. The legislative scheme, in furtherance of this objective, was to apply OSHA forthwith across the board, but to provide that regulation might be preempted by other agencies with comparable authority over particular industries.”
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.