Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.3d 815 · 2009
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably C & M Builders, LLC v. Strub (2011), Hughes General Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Labor Commission (2014)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 652 (§ 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 653 (§ 4 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 654 (§ 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 655 (§ 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 660 (§ 11 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 40 U.S.C. § 3704 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Auer v. Robbins · Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. · Davis v. United States · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden
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.
“(a) Each employer- (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has questioned whether the Secretary’s controlling employer citation policy violates OSHA's regulatory framework. See Anthony Crane Rental, Inc. v. Reich, 315 U.S.App. D.C. 86, 70 F.3d 1298, 1306 (D.C.Cir.1995); see also IBP, Inc. v. Herman, 144 F.3d 861, 865-66 (C.A.D.C.1998) . In Anthony Crane, the court stated in dicta that “it is not clear to us that the multi-employer [worksite] doctrine is consistent with the Secretary’s own construction industry regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12 (a)----[T]he language of § 1910.12 ... is in marked tension with the multi-employer [worksite] doctrine. ...” 70 F.3d at 1306 . However, because it was unnecessary to the outcome of the case, the court indicated that "we leave to a later date the critical decision of whether to apply the multi-employer [worksite] doctrine where an employer has been cited under the construction industry regulations of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12 ." Id. at 1307 . To date, the only court to have addressed this issue has held that the Secretary's multi-employer worksite policy did not exceed the scope of §§ 1910.12(a). Comm’r of Labor v. Weekley Homes, L.P., 169 N.C.App. 17 , 609 S.E.2d 407, 414-15 (N.C.Ct.App.2005).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Standards. The standards prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter are adopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6 of the Act and shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged in construction work. Each employer shall protect the employment and places of employment of each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with the appropriate standards prescribed in this paragraph.”
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.