Union Carbide Corp. v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “Petitioners attempt to divine congressional intent to exclude subsequent claims from the amendment’s ambit by parsing a single post-enactment statement of the late Senator Robert C. Byrd, sponsor of Section 1556.... [But] [a]s the Supreme Court has observed, ‘[p]ost-enactment legislative history (a contradiction in terms) is not a legitimate tool of statutory interpretation.’ Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, [ 562 U.S. 223 ], 131 S.Ct. 1068 , 1081, 179 L.Ed.2d 1 .(2011). In any case, although Senator Byrd’s statement may imply that the amendment excludes those widows who did file prior claims for benefits, it does not explicitly state as much. Meanwhile, his observation that the amendment applies to ‘all claims that will be filed henceforth’ can be read to encompass subsequent claims, and his description of the scope of the statute as ‘including’ certain types of claims connotes that his selected examples were intended to be illustrative of the amendment’s reach, not exhaustive. In short, any inference drawn from Senator Byrd’s ambiguous post-enactment statement cannot overcome the plain text of the amendment, which indicates its application to ‘all claims,’ without qualification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peabody Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

2. “It is clear that [section 1556] will apply to all claims that will be filed henceforth, including many claims filed by miners whose prior claims were denied, or by widows who never filed for benefits following the death of a husband. But section 1556 will also benefit all of the claimants who have recently filed a claim, and are awaiting or appealing a decision or order, or who are in the midst of trying to determine whether to seek- a modification of a recent order. Section 1556 applies immediately to all pending claims, including claims that were finally awarded or denied prior to the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for which the claimant seeks to modify a denial, or for which other actions are taken in order to modify an award or denial.... Section 1556 applies even if a final order is modified, or actions are taken to bring about the modification of an order, subsequent to the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peabody Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

3. “[W]e recognize that the record evidence has not changed since the denial of the original claims and that the only relevant change is one of law.... [T]he statutory change in law provides a previously unavailable basis for relief that justifies the instant claims, since res ju-dicata does not bar claims that the parties have not had a “full and fair opportunity to litigate.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.