Tuggle v. Raymond Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 2013
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. § 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)
Relies on George BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Y & O PRESS COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee · Clarksville-Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co. · Bellamy v. Federal Express Corp. · Street v. Calvert · Teal v. Ei Nemours and Company
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Compliance with government standards — Rebuttable presumption.— Compliance by a manufacturer or seller with any federal or state statute or administrative regulation existing at the time a product was manufactured and prescribing standards for design, inspection, testing, manufacture, labeling, warning or instructions for use of a product, shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the product is not in an unreasonably dangerous condition in re gard to matters covered by these standards.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We approve of the trial court’s statement that the purpose of T.C.A. § 29-28-104 is “to give refuge to the manufacturer who is operating in good faith and [in] compliance of what the law requires him to do.” We hold that the plain language of T.C.A. § 29-28-104 is that the presumption is limited to “matters covered by these standards.” The OSHA regulations “cover” or are applicable to an employer’s conduct, not a manufacturer’s conduct.”
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.