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 To Jan. 27, 2020 Clear all

6 instruments · showing 1–6

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

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)

The Orders Library

Results