Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 659 F.2d 706 - Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.

Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

659 F.2d 706 · 1981

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
16
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Dixon v. International Harvester Co. (1985), Elliott v. Sd Warren Company (1998)

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 16 states

34019811990200020102020decided

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) · 33 U.S.C. § 905 · 33 U.S.C. § 941

Relies on Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · Delli Paoli v. United States · Kernan v. American Dredging Co. · Atlas Roofing Company Inc v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Irey · Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute Marshall

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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Regulations promulgated under ... OSHA, provide evidence of the standard of care exacted of employers, but they neither create an implied cause of action nor establish negligence per se. While they are evidence of a general standard of care due employees, they establish no standard of care due third persons. Therefore, in this negligence action, we reject the argument that the failure of a third party that was not the plaintiff's employer to follow OSHA regulations establishes that third party’s negligence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or in any manner affect any workman's compensation law or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or in the course of, employment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “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.”
    3 later decisions 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.