Reding v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
598 F.2d 513 · 1979
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2002
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · 11 Cal. 3d 574 - Hurtado v. Superior Court
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“30-1-131. PROVISIONS FOR INDEMNITY IN CERTAIN CONTRACTS; INVALIDITY. (a) All agreements, covenants or promises contained in, collateral to or affecting any agreement pertaining to any well for oil, gas or water, or mine for any mineral, which purport to indemnify the indemnitee against loss or liability for damages for: (i) death or bodily injury to persons; (ii) injury to property; or (iii) any other loss, damage, or expense under either (i) or (ii) from: (A) the sole or concurrent negligence of the indemnitee or the agents or employees of the indemnitee or any independent contractor who is directly responsible to such indemnitee; or (B) from any accident which occurs in operations carried on at the direction or under the supervision of the indemnitee or an employee or representative of the indemnitee or in accordance with methods and means specified by the indemnitee or employees or representatives of the indemnitee, are against public policy and are void and unenforceable to the extent that such contract of indemnity by its terms purports to relieve the indemnitee from loss or liability for its own negligence. This provision shall not affect the validity of any insurance contract or any benefit conferred by the Worker’s Compensation Law [27-12-101 to 27-12-805] of this state. (Laws 1969, ch. 46,1; 1977, ch. 145,1)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to come within the provision of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, not only must the obligation of a contract have been impaired, but it must have been impaired by some act of the legislative power of the State, and not by a decision of its judicial department only.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We hold that the clear language of the statute voids and makes unenforceable any agreement to the extent that it seeks to indemnify an indemnitee for his own negligence — regardless of the character of the negligence sought to be protected. (Emphasis added.)”
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.