King v. Gibbs’s Empirical Analysis
876 F.2d 1275 · 1989
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Steven J. Holman and Karen L. Holman v. State of Indiana and Indiana Department of Transportation (2000), Eichenholtz v. Brennan (1995)
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Cort v. Ash · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala.
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 42 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,” ... ? 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?”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In its recent pronouncements, the Court has reaffirmed the use of the Cort test but has also made it clear that the principal focus is on the second of the Cort factors — whether the legislature intended to create a private cause of action. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 , 99 S.Ct. 1946 , 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568 , 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2485 , 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979). The first and third of the Cort factors are aids in determining that intent, Touche Ross, 442 U.S. at 575-76 , 99 S.Ct. at 2488-89 ; see also P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 946 (1988), and, by negative implication, it is unclear whether the fourth Cort factor — whether the cause of action is generally thought of as a matter of state concern — has any continuing significance. But see Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353, 393 , 102 S.Ct. 1825, 1847 , 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982) (Court noted that fourth Cort factor favored implying private right of action under a provision of the Commodities Exchange Act.). In sum, unless a congressional intent to create the right of action “can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.” Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union, 451 U.S. 77, 94 , 101 S.Ct. 1571, 1582 , 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal rule of decision is 'necessary to protect uniquely federal interests,' and [when] Congress has given the courts the power to develop substantive law.”
3 later decisions 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.