Specific excavation requirements

CurrencyCurrent through May 31, 2023
Citation 29 C.F.R. §1926.651
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
49 cases
  • Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 2008
    ... ... under its contract with Konover, including Soneco's duty to supervise the excavation work, to ensure compliance with OSHA safety regulations and to provide mechanical safeguards and ... The trial court also concluded, in addressing four specific claims made by Konover in support of its motions, that it properly had (1) granted the plaintiff's ...     Soneco also agreed, under part 6 of the subcontract agreement, entitled "Safety Requirements," to comply with "[a]ll applicable federal, state, local, or other regulatory agency's safety rules ... ...
  • P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 13 Junio 1997
    ... ... made entirely in stable rock or are less than five feet in depth, "[e]ach employee in an excavation shall be protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective system") ...         The ... To be specific, the OSH Act acknowledges the existence of two separate adjudicators--the Commission and the ... ...
  • Comtran Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 24 Julio 2013
    ... ... a six-feet deep trench with an unprotected five-feet high spoil pile at the edge of the excavation. This appeal presents an issue of first impression in our circuit: Is it appropriate to impute a ... was created; and importantly, (4) that the employer knowingly disregarded the Act's requirements. See Reich, 16 F.3d at 1155 (citing Cleveland Consolidated, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & ... might have been able to more effectively rebut the Secretary's offer of proof with specific evidence in direct response to the alleged inadequacies. 12 As it was, ComTran had to guess what ... ...
  • Tripoli Mgmt. LLC v. Waste Connections of Kan. Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • 18 Julio 2011
    ... ... 1998). To counter a "properly made" motion, the non-movant must come forward with specific facts based on admissible evidence. Id. The non-movant must show more than some "metaphysical ... excavated, and (3) "time and material" billing for removal of water and mud from excavation site and for extra "rain flap" work. The following are the uncontroverted facts relevant to the ... Dwire quotes the following on written change order requirements in construction contracts: The principle of strict enforcement of 'written order' requirements is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT