596 F. Supp. 472 - Abbott v. Donovan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated, (2) that sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and (3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 215 F. Supp. 2d 1345 - Former Employees of Marathon Ashland Pipeline, LLC v. Chao · 74 F. Supp. 2d 1280 - Former Employees of Kleinerts, Inc. v. Herman

2. “Any examination of the causation standard must begin with the statute itself. Section 222 provides that “the term ‘contributed importantly’ means a cause which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause.” The statute offers little assistance in ascertaining the precise meaning to be accorded the word “important.” Hence, the court may seek guidance from the accompanying legislative history. The relevant history reveals that Congress intended that “a cause * * * be significantly more than de minimus to have contributed importantly.” S.Rep. No. 93-1298, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 133, reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 7186, 7275. Yet, Congress strongly advised against the use of “any mechanical designation such as a percentage of causation.” Id. By way of example, the Senate Report noted that if a factor, other than imports, was “so dominant” that any separation from employment and decline in sales or production would have occurred despite the presence of increased imports, the Secretary could not find that a petition satisfied the statutory causation requirement. Id. Indeed, it is evident that any separation resulting from “domestic competition, seasonal, cyclical or technological factors,” regardless of the level of import penetration, is not sufficient to qualify a worker for certification of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance benefits. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 614 F. Supp. 1245 - Estate of Finkel v. Donovan

3. “a cause which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause.” Id. § 2272. The relevant legislative history shows that Congress intended that a cause be”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. ILWU Local 142 v. Donovan