Rauch v. United Instruments, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
548 F.2d 452 · 1976
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 2000 · most notably 37 Cal. 3d 540 - Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1984), Benjamins v. British European Airways (1978)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 610 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 49 U.S.C. § 1302 · 49 U.S.C. § 308 · 49 U.S.C. § 329
Relies on Cort v. Ash · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Zahn v. International Paper Co. · Snyder v. Harris · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rigsby
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, is the plaintiff “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted” . . . —that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The paramount concern of Congress for safety in air travel is evident in . . . sections of the [FAA] spelling out the powers and duties of the Administrator. See §§ 302(c)(1), 307, 312(c), 602(b), 603, 604, 605(b), and 609(a) of the [FAA]. . . . Other parts of the [FAA] pertaining to the functions of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Secretary of Transportation, the National Transportation Board and the Chief of the Weather Bureau also contain indications of congressional concern for the safety of aircraft in flight. See §§ 102(b) and (e), 103(a) and (c), 701(a)(5) and 803 of the [FAA] .... Undoubtedly, the congressional objective of safety permeates the [FAA] and the fostering of safe air travel was the primary motive of Congress for the enactment of § 601 of the [FAA] and the Administrator's chief concerns in promulgating, under the authority of that section, the safety provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations upon which the plaintiffs rely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For an essential element of such a cause of action, express or implied, is injury resulting from such a statutory violation which has been inflicted upon the plaintiff in his capacity as a member of the protected class and which has caused him measurable damage.”
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.