The Record

The Orders Library

Name: The COVID Project Orders Library
Creator: The COVID Project

13,511 instruments indexed by The COVID Project: the orders of the fifty States and the District, forty metros, the federal layer and the agencies; the standing duties; the organizers' notices; the legal authorities. Filter by kind, State, limitation type, quarter and more; open the exhibit; download what you find.

Double quotes make a phrase ("stay at home"). An exhibit ID (TX-004) opens its record first.

The COVID Projectcovidproject.com/library

Filters:Level: Court Standing duty Alcohol and bars 2020 Q3 Clear all

14 instruments · showing 1–14

Sort Per page

Exhibit	Instrument	Issuer	Jurisdiction	Issued	Quarters	Limitations	Grade
Ex. DUT-OR-019	Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (Feb. 12, 1985) (SC S30764): the standing Oregon rule on governmental safety requirements as the standard of care (negligence per se where the requirement is enacted by the legislature or promulgated under delegated authority for general public safety; a workplace safety rule protecting a class that includes the plaintiff is admissible and 'may' be taken into account by the trier of fact in deciding due care)Shahtout, Petitioner on Review, v. Emco Garbage Company, Inc. et al, Respondents on Review	Supreme Court of Oregon	OregonCourt	Feb. 12, 1985	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyStanding dutyOther	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-OH-017	Court decisionEicher v. United States Steel Corp., 32 Ohio St.3d 248 (1987) (decided September 2, 1987)	Supreme Court of Ohio (per curiam; No. 86-1793)	OhioCourt	Sept. 2, 1987	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyWorkplace rulesStanding duty	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-SC-020	Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 410 S.E.2d 251 (S.C. 1991) (heard Jan. 7, 1991; decided Oct. 14, 1991)Whether a private cause of action for damages may be instituted under S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-9-40 and 61-9-410; the test for negligence per se…	Supreme Court of South Carolina (per curiam; certified question under Supreme Court Rule 46 from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina)	South CarolinaCourt	Oct. 14, 1991	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyStanding dutyOther	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-MS-013	Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Travis, 808 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 2002), No. 2000-IA-01074-SCT (Feb. 28, 2002)Employer's 'non-delegable duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work' (claims of ninety-nine employees arising from the employer's…	Supreme Court of Mississippi (Smith, P.J., for the Court)	MississippiCourt	Feb. 28, 2002	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyWorkplace rulesStanding duty	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-MS-014	Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So. 2d 1092 (Miss. 2004), No. 2003-IA-00398-SCT (Feb. 19, 2004)The Supreme Court's statement of its Travis holding: all the employees' claims 'arose out of ICR's policy of not warning or protecting its…	Supreme Court of Mississippi	MississippiCourt	Feb. 19, 2004	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyWorkplace rulesStanding duty	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-MO-010	Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. banc 2016), No. SC94442, opinion issued June 7, 2016Curt Peters and Cheri Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., and Patrick Terrio	Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc (Breckenridge, C.J.; Stith, Draper and Russell, JJ., concurring; Fischer, J., concurring in result; Wilson and Teitelman, JJ., in separate opinions)	MissouriCourt	June 7, 2016	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyWorkplace rulesStanding duty	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-TX-021	In re Abbott, No. 20-50264 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020) (published), 954 F.3d 772In re Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas, et al. (petition for writ of mandamus; GA-09)	United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Duncan, J., joined by Elrod, J.; Dennis, J., dissenting)	Texas (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)Court	Apr. 7, 2020	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyEmergency declarationHealth care ordersStanding duty	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-KS-020	Kelly v. Legislative Coordinating Council, No. 122,765 (Kan. Apr. 11, 2020) (original action in quo warranto; quo warranto granted in part)Laura Kelly, Governor of the State of Kansas, v. Legislative Coordinating Council, et al.	Supreme Court of Kansas (per curiam)	KansasCourt	Apr. 11, 2020	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyGathering capEvents and venuesStanding dutyOther	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-TN-018	The Local Spot, Inc. v. Lee, No. 3:20-cv-00421, Doc. 59 (M.D. Tenn. July 14, 2020) (order refusing temporary restraining order)Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (bars and restaurants v. Governor Lee, Mayor Cooper and Chief Medical Director…	United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Richardson, J.)	Tennessee (Middle District of Tennessee; Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County)Court	July 14, 2020	2020 Q3	Standing dutyBusiness closureCapacity limitAlcohol and bars	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-AK-009	Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction, Municipality of Anchorage v. Kriner's Diner, LLC, et al., No. 3AN-20-07394 CIOrder Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction (compliance with Emergency Order EO-15; indoor dining prohibited)	Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage (Eric A. Aarseth, Superior Court Judge)	Alaska (Third Judicial District at Anchorage)Court	Aug. 7, 2020	2020 Q3	Standing dutyBusiness closureStanding dutyOperating condition	Primary source read
Ex. LA-075	4 Aces Enterprises, LLC v. Edwards, No. 20-2150, Order and Reasons (E.D. La. Aug. 17, 2020) (Doc. 50)Order and Reasons denying bar owners' motion to enjoin enforcement of Proclamations 89 and 96 JBE 2020 (on-site consumption ban at bars)	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Feldman, J.)	Louisiana (E.D. La.)Court	Aug. 17, 2020	2020 Q3	Business closureAlcohol and bars	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-VT-019	State v. Club Fitness of Vermont, Inc. / Manovill v. State of Vermont, Scott and Donovan (Rutland Super. Ct., Civ. Div.): decision granting the State's motion to dismiss the gym owner's constitutional and takings claims (19 pages, week of September 28, 2020)Judge tosses bid by Rutland gym owner to collect from state over Covid-19 closure (VTDigger, Sept. 30, 2020)	Judge Robert Mello, Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division (decision of September 2020); reported by VTDigger (Alan J. Keays), September 30, 2020	Vermont (Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division)Court	Sept. 30, 2020	2020 Q3	Standing dutyEmergency declarationBusiness closureStanding duty	Confirmed from a secondary source
Ex. DUT-CT-011	Casey v. Lamont, SC 20494 (argued Dec. 11, 2020; officially released Mar. 29, 2021), 338 Conn. 479, 258 A.3d 647 (2021)Kristine Casey et al. v. Governor Ned Lamont	Supreme Court of Connecticut (McDonald, J., for a unanimous court; Robinson, C.J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.)	Connecticut (Supreme Court of Connecticut)Court	Mar. 29, 2021	2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3	Standing dutyBusiness closureCapacity limitAlcohol and barsOther	Primary source read
Ex. DUT-IA-017	Riley Drive Entertainment I, Inc. v. Reynolds, No. 20-1510 (Iowa Feb. 18, 2022) (amended Apr. 7, 2022)Riley Drive Entertainment I, Inc. d/b/a Tonic Bar, et al. v. Governor Kimberly K. Reynolds and Iowa Department of Public Health - opinion…	Supreme Court of Iowa (Mansfield, J., for a unanimous court)	IowaCourt	Feb. 18, 2022	2020 Q32020 Q4	Standing dutyBusiness closureAlcohol and barsOperating condition	Primary source read

Supreme Court of Oregon, Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (Feb. 12, 1985) (SC S30764): the standing Oregon rule on governmental safety requirements as the standard of care (negligence per se where the requirement is enacted by the legislature or promulgated under delegated authority for general public safety; a workplace safety rule protecting a class that includes the plaintiff is admissible and 'may' be taken into account by the trier of fact in deciding due care) (standing) (Ex. DUT-OR-019)
Supreme Court of Ohio (per curiam; No. 86-1793), Court decision (standing) (Ex. DUT-OH-017)
Supreme Court of South Carolina (per curiam; certified question under Supreme Court Rule 46 from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina), Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 410 S.E.2d 251 (S.C. 1991) (heard Jan. 7, 1991; decided Oct. 14, 1991) (standing) (Ex. DUT-SC-020)
Supreme Court of Mississippi (Smith, P.J., for the Court), Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Travis, 808 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 2002), No. 2000-IA-01074-SCT (Feb. 28, 2002) (standing) (Ex. DUT-MS-013)
Supreme Court of Mississippi, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So. 2d 1092 (Miss. 2004), No. 2003-IA-00398-SCT (Feb. 19, 2004) (standing) (Ex. DUT-MS-014)
Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc (Breckenridge, C.J.; Stith, Draper and Russell, JJ., concurring; Fischer, J., concurring in result; Wilson and Teitelman, JJ., in separate opinions), Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. banc 2016), No. SC94442, opinion issued June 7, 2016 (standing) (Ex. DUT-MO-010)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Duncan, J., joined by Elrod, J.; Dennis, J., dissenting), In re Abbott, No. 20-50264 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020) (published), 954 F.3d 772 (Ex. DUT-TX-021)
Supreme Court of Kansas (per curiam), Kelly v. Legislative Coordinating Council, No. 122,765 (Kan. Apr. 11, 2020) (original action in quo warranto; quo warranto granted in part) (Ex. DUT-KS-020)
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Richardson, J.), The Local Spot, Inc. v. Lee, No. 3:20-cv-00421, Doc. 59 (M.D. Tenn. July 14, 2020) (order refusing temporary restraining order) (Ex. DUT-TN-018)
Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage (Eric A. Aarseth, Superior Court Judge), Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction, Municipality of Anchorage v. Kriner's Diner, LLC, et al., No. 3AN-20-07394 CI (Aug. 7, 2020) (Ex. DUT-AK-009)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Feldman, J.), 4 Aces Enterprises, LLC v. Edwards, No. 20-2150, Order and Reasons (E.D. La. Aug. 17, 2020) (Doc. 50) (Ex. LA-075)
Judge Robert Mello, Rutland Superior Court, Civil Division (decision of September 2020); reported by VTDigger (Alan J. Keays), September 30, 2020, State v. Club Fitness of Vermont, Inc. / Manovill v. State of Vermont, Scott and Donovan (Rutland Super. Ct., Civ. Div.): decision granting the State's motion to dismiss the gym owner's constitutional and takings claims (19 pages, week of September 28, 2020) (Sept. 30, 2020) (Ex. DUT-VT-019)
Supreme Court of Connecticut (McDonald, J., for a unanimous court; Robinson, C.J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.), Casey v. Lamont, SC 20494 (argued Dec. 11, 2020; officially released Mar. 29, 2021), 338 Conn. 479, 258 A.3d 647 (2021) (Ex. DUT-CT-011)
Supreme Court of Iowa (Mansfield, J., for a unanimous court), Riley Drive Entertainment I, Inc. v. Reynolds, No. 20-1510 (Iowa Feb. 18, 2022) (amended Apr. 7, 2022) (Ex. DUT-IA-017)

The Orders Library

Results