Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Board’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 1039 · 1982
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc. (1995), Rex Morrison Harold Highley v. Allstate Indemnity Company Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (2000)
29 federal appellate · 8 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 14 U.S.C. § 252 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 49 U.S.C. § 1301 · 49 U.S.C. § 1302 · 49 U.S.C. § 1324 · 49 U.S.C. § 308
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Cort v. Ash · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Cannon v. University of Chicago
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Is this plaintiff a member of the class for whose "especial” benefit the statute was passed? In other words, does the statute create a federal right for this plaintiff? (2) Is there any evidence of legislative intent, either explicit or implicit; to create or deny a private remedy? (3) Is it consistent with the legislative scheme to imply a private remedy? (4) Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law so that implying a federal right of action would be inappropriate?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“accept[] every claim of damages at face value,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“When Congress has established a detailed enforcement scheme, which expressly provides a private right of action for violations of specific provisions, that is a strong indication that Congress did not intend to provide private litigants with a means of redressing violations of other sections of the Act.”
2 later decisions 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.