Faa Vs. Cooper - Cites

47 entries

• Doe Vs. Chao
• RichlIn Security Service Co. Vs. Chertoff
• United States Vs. Kubrick
• Birdsall Vs. Coolidge
• of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
• Co., 200 U. S. 321 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION et al. v. COOPER
• U. S. 187 , and any ambiguities are to be construed in favor of immunity, United States v. Williams
• is a plausible interpretation of the statute that would not allow money damages against the Government. United States v. Nordic
• Molzof v. United
• and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. FAA v. Cooper
• FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, et al., PETITIONERS v. STANMORE
• United States v. Nordic
• Irwin v. Department
• Lane, supra, at 192. Any ambiguities in the statutory language are to be construed in favor of immu- nity, United States v. Williams
• s consent to be sued is never en- larged beyond what a fair reading of the text requires, Ruckelshaus v. Sierra
• citing Eastern Transp. Co. v. United
• States, 502 U. S. 301, 307 (1992) (quoting Morissette v. United
• in the remedial provisions of both statutes to include compensation for mental and emotional distress. See, e.g., Seaton v. Sky
• Steele v. Title
• Thompson v. San
• Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
• see also Mackie v. Rieser
• Ryan v. Foster
• see also Osofsky v. Zipf
• Herpich v. Wallace
• In Doe v. Chao
• was not without precedent. The terms had occasionally been used interchangeably. See, e.g., Wetzel v. Gulf
• Electric Furnace Corp. v. Deering
• S Furniture Sales Co. v. Edward
• Clementson v. Minnesota
• For example, in Birdsall v. Coolidge
• Ibid. And in Gertz v. Robert
• rule of construction that Congress intends the same language in similar statutes to have the same meaning, see Northcross v. Board
• do so. 3 This narrow usage is reflected in contemporaneous state-court decisions as well. See, e.g., Reist v. Manwiller
• Nalder v. Crest
• Guzman v. Western
• that, depending on the context, can be limited to compensation for only pecuniary harm. 9 See also Moriarty v. Lippe
• Meyerle v. Pioneer
• Winans v. Chapman
• Childers v. San
• as it must in light of our reasoning in Doe v. Chao
• g)(1)(C) or (D) may be explained by the availability of such relief under the APA). FAA v. Cooper
• s history, see United States v. Nordic
• emphasis added). See also, e.g., Block v. Neal
• Indian Towing Co. v. United
• Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos
• under the Copyright Act of 1909, ante, at 8 (quoting in parenthetical Mackie v. Rieser

← Back to judgment