Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 496 F.2d 416 - Ash v. Cort

Ash v. Cort’s Empirical Analysis

496 F.2d 416 · 1974

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 1996
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1996 · most notably Cort v. Ash (1975), Walck v. American Stock Exchange, Inc. (1982)

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

220197419801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Baker v. Carr · Bell v. Hood · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * Finding an implied cause pursuant to these criteria is not entirely an exercise in divining legislative intent. Certainly, legislative intent is relevant; where the legislature clearly has indicated its intent to grant or withhold a cause of action, implicitly or explicitly, courts will give effect to that intent. E. g., National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 458-461 , 94 S.Ct. 690 , 38 L.Ed.2d 646 (1974). Absent some reasonably clear indication of legislative attention to the possible creation of a cause of action, however, courts ascertain the policies underlying the substantive law and determine the propriety, as a means of effectuating those policies, of affording litigants a particular remedy. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, supra, 403 U.S. [388] at 395-397, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (opinion of the Court), and 402-403, n. 4, 91 S.Ct. 1999 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 619 ] (Harlan, J., concurring); Holloway v. Bristol-Meyers Corp., [ 158 U.S.App.D.C. 207 ] 485 F.2d 986, 989-999 (D.C.Cir. 1973).” (Emphasis added.) 496 F.2d at 421.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * This rule of statutory construction does not alter the process used to determine if a cause should be inferred in the absence of statutory language indicating legislative intent; rather, it aids the court merely in determining when legislative intent to preclude a remedy can be fairly implied.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “gift . . . of money, or anything of value . . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.