Jowers v. BOC Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 28 U.S.C. § 292 · 29 U.S.C. § 651 (§ 2 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 29 U.S.C. § 655 (§ 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Patterson v. United States · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The weakness with [defendants’] argument is that, given the evidence adduced at trial, it does not appear to the Court — and apparently it did not appear to the jury — that there actually is “strong disagreement in the scientific community” that welding fumes can cause neurological injury. As discussed above, defendants’ own expert neurologists agree that manganese in welding fumes can accumulate in the brain and cause Manganese-Induced Parkinson-ism. This knowledge is not new: the first scientific report of MIP in welders dates to 1937, and treatises on industrial hygiene in the first half of the 20th century explain that welders can suffer brain damage from excessive manganese exposure. Further, defendants’ own internal documents — as opposed to the publications they wrote for welding journals — have for decades acknowledged the existence of welders who suffered neurological injury due to welding fume exposure. It is more accurate to say there is strong disagreement in the scientific community regarding how often welders actually suffer the hazard of MIP, and to what degree they are injured. It is generally agreed that, like other toxin-related injuries, whether a welder will ever suffer MIP (and the degree of his impairment) depends on: (1) individual susceptibility, and (2) the “dose,” meaning how much manganese he is exposed to (both cumulative and episodic). The parties and their experts disagree vehemently, however, on how these factors combine to disclose the frequenc”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendants' final argument why they are entitled to judgment on Mr. lowers’ punitive damages claim, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, is that their warnings complied with the minimum legal requirements established by OSHA; with industry standards such as those reflected by ANSI Z49.1; and with military specifications. This argument, however, is not supported by the facts or the law.”). 185 .See Jowers, 617 F.3d at 354 (finding, for a time, defendants weakened the warning approved by OSHA by adding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“NEMA”), Electric Welding Section meeting minutes at 135, discussing MetLife Booklet (Jan. 20, 1938) (plaintiff's trial exh. 140); BOC internal memorandum, quoting MetLife Booklet (plaintiff's trial exh. 197); see also trial tr. at 627:18-634:20 (discussing the Booklet and NEMA meeting with Lincoln’s corporate representative). 103 . Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,”
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.