Dillon III v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis
895 F.2d 1175 · 1990
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably GNB Battery Technologies, Inc. v. Gould, Inc. (1995), Seinfeld v. Austen (1994)
12 federal appellate · 1 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. § 3906 · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] federal rule of decision is necessary but not sufficient for federal jurisdiction. There must also be a right of action to enforce that rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the entitlement to enforce the federal rule generally must be found within the statute in question. Here [the plaintiff] comes up short: the Risk Retention Act does not create a private right to enforce § 3903(f). Quite the contrary, § 3903(g) says that “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to affect the authority of any State to bring an action in any Federal or State court.” See also § 3903(e). A law that does not “affect” the ability of a state to sue hardly creates a right of action. Another part of the Risk Retention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3906 , added in 1986, does create a federal right of action. Section 3906 says that a district court may enjoin a risk retention group from underwriting insurance if “such group is in hazardous financial condition.” [The defendants’] firm is a purchasing group,- not a risk retention group. The express right of action in § 3906 stands in contrast to the no-effect clause of § 3903(g). What remains is the conclusion that there is no private right of action to enforce § 3903(f) in federal court.”
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.