Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Thompson Vs. Thompson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 12, 1988

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

63 entries 5 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Cort Vs. Ash US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  2. Universities Research Assn., Inc. Vs. Coutu US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1981
  3. Daily Income Fund, Inc. Vs. Fox US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1984
    Relied / Followed
  4. J. I Case Co. Vs. Borak US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1964
  5. ins Vs. Chadha US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1983
  6. U.S. 174 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  7. U.S. 174 (1988) Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  8. in enacting the statute. As guides to discerning that intent, we have relied on the four factors set out in Cort v. Ash
    Search
  9. S. 66 , 422 U. S. 78 (1975), along with other tools of statutory construction. See Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox
    Search
  10. California v. Sierra
    Search
  11. Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
    Search
  12. Cannon v. University
    Search
  13. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  14. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport
    Search
  15. Congress' perception of the law that it was shaping or reshaping. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
    Search
  16. to trigger full faith and credit requirements, see, e.g., Hooks v. Hooks
    Search
  17. McDougald v. Jenson
    Search
  18. CA11), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 860 (1986), and this Court had declined expressly to settle the question. See Ford v. Ford
    Search
  19. to change the terms of custody according to their own views of the child's best interest. See New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey
    Search
  20. its constitutional or statutory incarnations, does not give rise to an implied federal cause of action. Minnesota v. Northern
    Search
  21. is not compatible with the purpose and context of the legislative scheme to infer a private cause of action. See Cort v. Ash
    Search
  22. of persons, the PKPA is a mandate directed to state courts to respect the custody decrees of sister States. See Cannon v. University
    Search
  23. on enforcement by the federal courts, provide strong evidence against inferring a federal cause of action. Cf. Cort v. Ash
    Search
  24. bill also militate against the more circumscribed role for the federal courts that petitioner proposes. See Rogers v. Platt
    Search
  25. court holdings are the most likely to require resolution of these traditional domestic relations inquiries. See Rogers v. Platt
    Search
  26. U.S.App.D.C. 154, 162, 814 F.2d 683, 691 (1987). Cf. Cort v. Ash
    Search
  27. denying the necessity of an actual congressional intent to create a private right of action, and in referring to Cort v. Ash
    Search
  28. he focus of the inquiry is on whether Congress intended to create a remedy. Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu
    Search
  29. we have relied on the four factors set out in Cort v. Ash
    Search
  30. is not an accurate description of what we have done. It could not be plainer that we effectively overruled the Cort v. Ash
    Search
  31. analysis in Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
    Search
  32. U. S. 560 , 442 U. S. 575 -576 (1979), and Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  33. into the determinative factor, with the other three merely indicative of its presence or absence. Compare Cort v. Ash
    Search
  34. prior Page 484 U. S. 190 to its reenactment, had been held to create private rights of action. See Cannon v. University
    Search
  35. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
    Search
  36. towards implied rights of action. In the 23 years since Justice Clark's opinion for the court in J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
    Search
  37. U. S. 426 (1964), we have twice narrowed the test for implying a private right, first in Cort v. Ash
    Search
  38. supra, itself, and then again in Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
    Search
  39. supra, and Transamerica Mortgage Advisers, Inc. v. Lewis
    Search
  40. supra. See also Cannon v. University
    Search
  41. of Chicago, supra, at 441 U. S. 730 (Powell, J., dissenting), and California v. Sierra
    Search
  42. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff
    Search
  43. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National
    Search
  44. and Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  45. the congressional intent test for implying private rights of action as it has evolved since the repudiation of Cort v. Ash
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Thompson
    Search
  47. See Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox
    Search
  48. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
    Search
  49. Hooks v. Hooks
    Search
  50. See Ford v. Ford
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial