Government of Guam v. American President Lines’s Empirical Analysis
28 F.3d 142 · 1994
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Drake v. Federal Aviation Administration (2002), Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp. (2002)
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1357 · 41 U.S.C. § 351 (Service Contract) · 49 U.S.C. § 10701 · 49 U.S.C. § 11705
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ultimate issue is whether Congress intended to create a private cause of action[.] Unless such congressional intent can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist. It is [ ] an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a remedy, courts must be especially reluctant to provide additional remedies. In such cases, in the absence of strong indicia of contrary congressional intent, we are compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A disregard of the command of [a] statute is a wrongful act, and where it results in damage to one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted, the right to recover the damages from the party in default is implied, according to a doctrine of the common law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the central analysis is directed at discovering legislative intent by means of 'the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source.'”
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.