Collins v. FMHA-USDA’s Empirical Analysis
105 F.3d 1366 · 1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Hardy v. Regions Mortgage, Inc. (2006), 671 F. Supp. 2d 1111 - Rosal v. First Federal Bank of California (2009)
5 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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 12 U.S.C. § 2604 · 12 U.S.C. § 2605 · 12 U.S.C. § 2607 · 12 U.S.C. § 2609 · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1986
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Rogero v. Noone · Dime Coal Co. v. Combs · Louisiana v. Litton Mortgage Co.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Collins contends that the district court erred in finding that there exists no implied private civil remedy for violations of the RESPA, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 2604 (c). That statutory provision requires each lender to provide the borrower with a ‘good faith estimate’ of the amount or range of charges for specific settlement services the borrower is likely to incur. That provision does not, however, explicitly authorize a private remedy. The question is whether it implicitly provides for a private civil remedy. In determining whether a federal statute implicitly creates a private remedy, a court should inquire: (1) whether the statute was created for the plaintiffs special benefit, (2) whether there is any indication of legislative intent to create a private remedy, (3) whether a private remedy would be consistent with the legislative purpose, and (4) whether the area is so traditionally relegated to the states that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely upon federal law. Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 , 95 S.Ct. 2080 , 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975). Because the ultimate question is one of legislative intent, the most significant of these factors is whether there is any indication of congressional intent to create a private remedy. See, e.g., Transamerica, Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15-16 , 100 S.Ct. 242 , 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979). The present § 2604(c) replaced the prior § 2605, which had explicitly provided an action for damages for its vi”
1 later decision 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.