Riggers Erectors Inc v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission J Standard Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc’s Empirical Analysis
659 F.2d 1273 · 1981
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, Local 2610 v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1984), Chemetron Corporation v. Business Funds, Inc. (1982)
31 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Behymer · Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and W. J. Usery, the Secretary of Labor, S. D. Mullins Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and W. J. Usery, the Secretary of Labor, Lance Roofing Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and W. J. Usery, the Secretary of Labor · United States v. Tibbetts · 6 O.S.H. Cas.(bna) 1436, 1978 O.S.H.D. (Cch) P 22,646 Cornell and Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and Secretary of Labor
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Due process mandates that an employer receive notice of the requirements of any OSHA regulation before he is cited for an alleged violation.... Many, if not most, of the regulations promulgated under OSHA are sufficiently specific concerning the circumstances in which safety precautions must be taken that adequacy of notice is not a significant problem. The generality of [the construction industry general duty clause], however, mandates that it be applied only in such a manner that an employer may readily determine its requirements by some objective, external referent. [659 F.2d at 1279-1280 ] [Footnote omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“at least in the absence of a clear articulation by the [agency] of the circumstances in which industry practice is not controlling, due process requires a showing that the employer either failed to provide personal protective equipment customarily required in its industry or had actual knowledge that personal protective equipment was required under the circumstances of the case. [S & H Riggers, supra, 659 F.2d at 1275 (footnote omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]n employer might, consistently with the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, conclude that the variety of regulations requiring safety belts in specific situations represented an exclusive listing of the circumstances in which safety belts are required rather than indicating a general need for safety belts for all employees working at heights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.