Cort V. Ash Test

52 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Miener v. State OF Mo.
  673 F.2d 969· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 107×
  The court held that a private cause of action for damages exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, but not generally under the Education Act, and remanded for further consideration of claims under Section 1983.
• Pushkin v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Colo.
  658 F.2d 1372· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 96×
  A private right of action exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
• Borrell v. United States Int'l Commc'ns Agency
  682 F.2d 981· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 70×
  The court held that a probationary federal employee does not have an implied right of action under the CSRA for whistleblowing retaliation, but may pursue constitutional claims if the CSRA does not provide an adequate substitute remedy.
• Morast v. Lance
  807 F.2d 926· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, as no federal question was presented and state law claims were properly dismissed.
• Sherman v. Burke Contracting, Inc.
  891 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII does not imply a cause of action for money damages against former employers for retaliatory blacklisting.
• Landry v. ALL Am. Assurance Co.
  688 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that there is no implied private cause of action under § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12:91, but that the statute of limitations in the Louisiana Blue Sky Law (§ 51:715 E) is prescriptive, not peremptive.
• In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig. Henry Puchall v. Houghton
  823 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-30 ·cited 44×
  There is no private right of action under section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.
• United States v. Chemaly
  741 F.2d 1346· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the search was permissible under the 'search incident to arrest' exception and that the 'inevitable discovery' rule would apply even if the search were unlawful.
• Dime Coal Co., Inc. v. Harrison Combs
  796 F.2d 394· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that ERISA does not provide an implied private right of action for employers to recover mistaken contributions from multiemployer employee benefit plans.
• Glus v. The G. C. Murphy Co.
  629 F.2d 248· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the judiciary should not create federal common law for contribution under a federal statute that does not expressly provide for it, as this is a legislative function.
• Hofbauer v. The Nw. Nat'l Bank OF Rochester
  700 F.2d 1197· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 31×
  There is no implied federal right of action for damages for violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act and the National Flood Insurance Act.
• Micklus v. Carlson
  632 F.2d 227· 3d Cir.· 1980-09-03 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting judge held that the appellant's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding alleged YCA violations are moot because there is no immediate and real possibility of future violations.
• Nat'l SEA Clammers Ass'n & Gosta Lovgren v. City OF NEW York
  616 F.2d 1222· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that plaintiffs' failure to provide 60-day notice did not bar suits under the FWPCAA and MPRSA if they alleged direct injury, and that federal common law nuisance claims are available to private parties. The court affirmed dismissal of claims under the Rivers and H
• Scanlon v. Atascadero State Hosp.
  677 F.2d 1271· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 24×
  A private action under 29 U.S.C. § 794 to redress employment discrimination cannot be maintained unless a primary objective of the federal financial assistance is to provide employment.
• Doctor Nui Loa Price v. State OF Haw.
  764 F.2d 623· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Hou Hawaiians do not qualify for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 because they are not a federally recognized tribe, but federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists due to the federal-state compact. However, claims against the State are
• Walck v. Am. Stock Exch., Inc.
  687 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal securities laws do not create an implied private right of action for damages against stock exchanges for failure to enforce their own rules or federal margin requirements.
• Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr., Inc.
  941 F.2d 1220· D.C. Cir.· 1991-08-16 ·cited 19×
  The Service Contract Act (SCA) provides an exclusive administrative remedy, precluding private civil actions, including those brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for alleged violations of the SCA.
• Zajac v. Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Paul
  909 F.2d 1181· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 18×
  The Anti-Injunction Act deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to enjoin a state court proceeding, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.
• Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n, Local 94, Iaff, AFL-CIO v. The City OF NEW York
  676 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of seniority credits to provisional firefighters did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and that CETA's comprehensive administrative remedies preclude claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Burroughs v. Hills
  741 F.2d 1525· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying costs to the prevailing defendants under Rule 54(d), and that the plaintiffs failed to establish an implied private right of action under the relevant housing statute.
• A. Rab Chowdhury, M.D. v. The Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
  677 F.2d 317· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 15×
  A private cause of action under Title VI for injunctive relief does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Redd v. Fed. Land Bank OF ST. Louis
  851 F.2d 219· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 14×
  The 1985 amendments to the Farm Credit Act do not imply a private right of action for damages, as Congress did not intend to create such a remedy and allowing damages would be inconsistent with the amendments' primary purpose of strengthening the Farm Credit System.
• Kaschak v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  707 F.2d 902· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an employee's claim of wrongful discharge, even if a 'minor dispute' under the RLA, may be heard in federal court if the employee reasonably relied on the union to process the grievance and the union's failure to do so prevented timely resort to the National R
• Miscellaneous Serv. Workers v. Philco-Ford Corp.
  661 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Service Contract Act does not create a private right of action for employees against their employers, and that the state wage and hour claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Chartwell Commc'ns Grp. v. Westbrook
  637 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that over-the-air subscription television (STV) is not 'broadcasting' for the use of the general public under Section 605 of the Communications Act, and therefore its unauthorized interception is prohibited, and an implied private right of action exists under the s
• Anderson v. Usair, Inc.
  818 F.2d 49· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there is no implied private right of action under section 404(a) of the Federal Aviation Act for individuals to sue air carriers for violations of the duty to provide safe and adequate service. Furthermore, the court found no state action for constitutional cl
• King v. Gibbs
  876 F.2d 1275· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 11×
  There is no federal right to indemnification under the securities laws or federal common law, even for an innocent party.
• Schrachta v. Donald L. Curtis, M.D.
  752 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 does not contain an implied private right of action for federal employees to challenge personnel actions under its merit system principles.
• Chemung Canal Tr. Co. v. Sovran Bank/Maryland
  939 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 7×
  The court held that ERISA does not provide fiduciaries with causes of action for indemnification and contribution.
• Dist. Lodge NO. 166, Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. TWA Servs., Inc.
  731 F.2d 711· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that there is no private right of action under the Service Contract Act (SCA) for employees to sue a successor contractor directly for back wages, nor can mandamus compel retroactive wage determinations when the SCA does not provide such a remedy.
• G.S. Rasmussen & Assocs., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc.
  958 F.2d 896· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) can constitute a property interest under California law, and that recognizing such a right is not preempted by federal copyright, patent, or aviation law.
• Kaphy Long v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  913 F.2d 1262· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that former striking airline employees who were replaced and not reinstated are considered 'furloughed or otherwise terminated' under the Airline Deregulation Act's Employee Protection Program, entitling them to a right of first hire and an implied cause of action
• Galloway Farms, Inc. v. The United States
  834 F.2d 998· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 6×
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  719 F.2d 525· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there is no federal common law private cause of action for damages for wrongful occupancy of Indian land, and that such claims are preempted by federal statutes.
• Prieto v. Gluch
  913 F.2d 1159· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the prior litigation barred claims regarding § 1252(a) and jurisdiction, and that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(i) does not create a private cause of action for incarcerated aliens.
• Nazareen Ward v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n
  719 F.2d 311· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the EEOC's alleged negligence in processing a discrimination complaint is not a reviewable claim under the APA or an implied cause of action, and a conspiracy claim requires factual support beyond mere allegation.
• Ala. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Merrill Lynch
  680 F.2d 1384· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Depository Institutions Deregulation Act do not create private rights of action.
• DiLAURA v. Klementowski
  982 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Section 825p provides jurisdiction but not substantive rights for injunctive relief claims.
• Saltzman v. Farm Credit Servs. OF Mid-America
  950 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-09 ·cited 4×
  An implied private right of action is not available for alleged violations of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987.
• Ridenour v. Andrews Fed. Credit Union
  897 F.2d 715· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Credit Union Act does not provide an express or implied private right of action for the alleged wrongful removal of credit union officers or employees, and thus these claims should be dismissed on the merits. The court also held that the dismissal
• Derral Schroder v. Volcker
  864 F.2d 97· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for violations of various federal statutes, affirming the dismissal of their complaint.
• Howing Co. v. Nationwide Corp.
  826 F.2d 1470· 6th Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the proxy statement adequately disclosed the fairness of the transaction to unaffiliated security holders under Rule 13e-3, as it discussed the factors relied upon and the methodology used.
• Rawson v. Sears
  822 F.2d 908· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Colorado penal statutes in question do not provide an express or implied private right of action for age discrimination.
• McCABE v. City OF Eureka
  664 F.2d 680· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 4×
  No implied private right of action exists under 15 U.S.C. § 1674(a) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
• Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union OF Am., AFL-CIO
  606 F.2d 1350· D.C. Cir.· 1979-08-30 ·cited 4×
  An employer does not have a right of contribution from a union under the Equal Pay Act, but the issue of contribution under Title VII is remanded for a laches determination.
• Reeves v. Cont'l Equities Corp. OF Am. & Cont'l Corp.
  912 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that section 48(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not imply a private cause of action for employees, but reversed summary judgment on the ERISA claim, finding that the plaintiff should have been allowed discovery.
• Chairez v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  790 F.2d 544· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 2×
  8 U.S.C. § 1357 does not create an implied private cause of action for damages for aliens alleging wrongful detention, as Congress provided specific remedies like habeas corpus.
• Torres v. Sussex Cnty. Council
  2013 WL 6407711· Del. Super. Ct.· 2014-09-29 ·cited 1×
  The Delaware Superior Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all six of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the county ordinance did not create a private cause of action for wrongful termination, that the allegations of political discrimination were insufficient
• Media Gen. Cable OF Fairfax, Inc. v. Sequoyah Condo. Council OF Co-Owners
  991 F.2d 1169· 4th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 1×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring and dissenting opinion. The author disagrees with the majority's interpretation of the Cable Act and its avoidance of the takings issue.
• Myles M. Spicer v. Chicago Bd. OF Options Exch., Inc.
  977 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-24
  Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act does not provide an implied private right of action against an exchange for violating or failing to enforce its rules, nor against exchange members for violating exchange rules at issue.