Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Implied causes of action under federal statutes: the Air Carriers Access Act of 1986

Article Abstract:

The Air Carriers Access Act of 1986, which prohibits discrimination against the handicapped, should be interpreted to imply private cause of action and damages for emotional distress, but not punitive damages. The more stringent implication test established in Transamerica Mortgage Advisors Inc v Lewis should be applied rather than Cort v Ash. Under the Transamerica test, both statutory language and enactment circumstances support the implied private cause of action. The case of Guardians Assn v Civil Service Commission, NYC, supports the award of damages for emotional distress but not punitive damages.

Author: Eisenhauer, Nancy
Publisher: University of Chicago Law School
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1992
Civil aviation, Right of action

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Precedents construing statutes administered by federal agencies after the Chevron decision: what gives?

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court decision in Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council created a conflict between deference to administrative agencies' interpretation of statutes which they administer and the doctrine of stare decisis, since many court precedents from before the Chevron decision conflict with agency interpretations. The pre-Chevron decisions are best regarded as informative rather than binding in recognition of the changes in statutory construction instituted by the Chevron decision.

Author: Sharifi, Jahan
Publisher: University of Chicago Law School
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1993
Analysis, Interpretation and construction, Law, Powers and duties, Administrative agencies, Government agencies, Stare decisis

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Does Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act regulate insurance?

Article Abstract:

Federal courts should not interpret Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to require the insurance industry to conform its policies to the ADA. Courts have disagreed on how to apply Title III to the insurance industry. Applying the ADA to insurance might serve the act's overall goal of promoting equality for the disabled, but it would also drive up health care costs and have other undesirable consequences.

Author: Sobota, Luke A.
Publisher: University of Chicago Law School
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1999
United States, Discrimination in insurance, Insurance discrimination

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Laws, regulations and rules, Discrimination against disabled persons, Handicapped discrimination
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Global shares of German corporations and their dual listings on the Frankfurt and New York stock exchanges. Tracking stocks in Germany: is German corporate law flexible enough to adopt American financial innovations?
  • Abstracts: Blue sky mysteries of the National Securities Markets Improvements Act
  • Abstracts: Justiciability. Standing in the way of separation of powers: the consequences of Raines v. Byrd. Federal statutes and regulations
  • Abstracts: Race, gender, work, and choice: an empirical study of the lack of interest defense in Title VII cases challenging job segregation
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.