Also known as: ius actionis · right of action
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statutory or common-law entitlement authorizing a party to commence a lawsuit seeking redress for a specified injury. The measure of damages recoverable under the right depends on the wording of the statute creating it and the courts' interpretation of that wording.
Jacob Jennings died after a train crash caused by a defective braking system supplied by Titan Systems. His estate and employer filed suit under the state's wrongful death statute seeking lost future profits from a product launch that relied on his expertise. The court looked to the statute's text and prior interpretations to decide which categories of economic loss were compensable and whether the claimed profits qualified.
Judy Jacobs sued several telecommunications firms alleging an agreement to suppress competition. The complaint described parallel conduct but contained no direct evidence of an explicit agreement. The court examined whether the allegations stated a plausible right of action under the antitrust statute or merely described lawful independent behavior.
In 1984 the divestiture of AT&T's local telephone business created seven regional service monopolies known as Regional Bell Operating Companies or Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. More than a decade later Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which restructured local telephone markets and imposed duties on the ILECs to facilitate entry by competitive local exchange carriers through resale of services at wholesale rates, leasing of unbundled network elements, or interconnection of facilities. William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of all subscribers of local telephone and high-speed internet services from February 8, 1996 to the present. They named as defendants four consolidated ILECs: BellSouth Corporation, Qwest Communications International Inc., SBC Communications Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc. The complaint alleged that these ILECs conspired to restrain trade by engaging in parallel conduct to inhibit CLECs, including unfair agreements for network access, inferior connections, overcharging, and billing practices designed to sabotage CLEC customer relations. The complaint further alleged that the ILECs agreed not to compete against one another in their respective territories. This agreement was inferred from their common failure to pursue business opportunities in contiguous markets and from a statement by Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert that competing in another ILEC's territory might be a good way to turn a quick dollar but that does not make it right. The complaint asserted that in light of the absence of meaningful competition among the ILECs and their parallel course of conduct the defendants had entered into a contract combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry and to allocate customers and markets. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It concluded that the alleged parallel behavior was fully explained by each ILEC's independent interest in defending its own territory and that the complaint did not allege facts suggesting the decision to refrain from competing elsewhere was contrary to the ILECs' apparent economic interests. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that plus factors need not be pleaded and that allegations of parallel conduct suffice if they leave open the possibility of collusion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the proper standard for pleading an antitrust conspiracy through allegations of parallel conduct.
View caseJames Johnson was subjected to an unlawful search and arrest by federal agents. He filed suit in federal court seeking damages for the constitutional violation even though no statute expressly authorized such relief. The court considered whether the Constitution itself supplied a right of action against the officers.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseJoanna Jung, administratrix of an estate, sued in a Pennsylvania federal court over a fatal accident that occurred in Massachusetts. The defendants moved to transfer the case to Massachusetts. The court assessed whether the right of action created by the wrongful death statute would be affected by the change of venue.
On October 4, 1960, a commercial airliner scheduled to fly from Boston to Philadelphia plunged into Boston Harbor shortly after departing from a Boston airport. This crash led to the institution of over 150 actions for personal injury and wrongful death against the airline, manufacturers of the aircraft, the United States, and in some cases the Massachusetts Port Authority. More than 100 of these actions were brought in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. More than 45 actions were instituted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The present case involves 40 wrongful death actions brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by personal representatives of victims of the crash. These plaintiffs are described as Pennsylvania fiduciaries representing the estates of Pennsylvania decedents. The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer these actions to the District of Massachusetts. The defendants alleged that most of the witnesses resided there and that over 100 other actions were already pending in that district. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the actions. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred and should vacate its transfer order. The Court of Appeals concluded that a transfer could be granted only if the plaintiffs had qualified to sue in Massachusetts at the time the suits were brought in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review important questions concerning the construction and operation of § 1404(a). Prior citations in the case include the District Court decision at 204 F. Supp. 426 and the Court of Appeals decision at 309 F. 2d 953.
View caseJustin Jarvis's union sued his employer for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. The contract contained no express private remedy. The court determined whether federal common law supplied a right of action to enforce the agreement in federal court.
In 1953 the Textile Workers Union of America entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Lincoln Mills of Alabama. The agreement was to run for one year and from year to year thereafter unless terminated on specified notices. It contained a no-strike clause and established a multi-step grievance procedure whose final step, available to either party, was arbitration. Several grievances concerning work loads and work assignments arose under the agreement. The union processed the grievances through every step of the contractual procedure, after which the employer denied them. The union then requested arbitration, but the employer refused. The union filed suit in federal district court seeking an order compelling the employer to arbitrate the grievances. The district court held that it possessed jurisdiction and directed the employer to comply with the arbitration provisions of the agreement. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed by a divided vote, concluding that the district court lacked authority under either federal or state law to grant the requested relief. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. After the Court of Appeals decision but before oral argument, Lincoln Mills terminated its operations, ceased all work at the mill in March 1957, and contracted to sell its mill properties. Some of the grievances sought back pay for increased workloads, and the collective bargaining agreement authorized the arbitration board to adjust compensation retroactively.
View caseJavier Jimenez, a shareholder, sued corporate directors for misleading proxy statements that allegedly caused a merger to proceed on unfair terms. The securities statute did not expressly authorize private suits. The court considered whether an implied right of action existed to enforce the statutory duties.
Respondent owned 2,000 shares of common stock of J. I. Case Company acquired prior to the merger. He brought a civil action based on diversity jurisdiction. Respondent sought to enjoin a proposed merger between Case and the American Tractor Corporation on grounds including breach of the fiduciary duties of the Case directors, self-dealing among the management of Case and ATC, and misrepresentations contained in the material circulated to obtain proxies. The complaint was in two counts. The first count was based on diversity and claimed a breach of the directors' fiduciary duty to the stockholders. The second count alleged a violation of § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with reference to the proxy solicitation material. The injunction was denied and the merger was consummated. Successive amended complaints were filed. The case was heard on the two-count complaint. The allegations included that petitioners solicited proxies for a special stockholders’ meeting at which the merger was to be voted upon. The proxy solicitation material was false and misleading in violation of § 14(a) and Rule 14a-9. The merger was approved by a small margin of votes and would not have been approved but for the false and misleading statements. Case stockholders were damaged thereby. The District Court held that as to the federal count it had no power to redress the alleged violations of the Act but was limited solely to the granting of declaratory relief thereon under § 27 of the Act. The court held the Wisconsin security for expenses statute applicable to both counts except the declaratory portion of Count 2. It ordered respondent to furnish a bond in the amount of $75,000. Upon his failure to do so, the court dismissed the complaint save that part of Count 2 seeking a declaratory judgment. On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals reversed on both counts. It held that the District Court had the power to grant remedial relief and that the Wisconsin statute was not applicable. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question of whether § 27 of the Act authorizes a federal cause of action for rescission or damages to a corporate stockholder with respect to a consummated merger authorized pursuant to a proxy statement alleged to contain false and misleading statements violative of § 14(a) of the Act.
View caseThe measure of damages follows the wording of the statute that creates the right of action and the courts' interpretation of that wording. Some statutes limit recovery to pecuniary losses suffered by designated beneficiaries while others permit recovery for nonpecuniary losses such as loss of society. The court must examine the specific statutory language and controlling precedent rather than applying a uniform common-law formula.
Supporting sources
Yes. In negligence cases a court may adopt a legislative enactment or administrative regulation as the standard of conduct even if the enactment does not expressly authorize private suits. The silence of the guideline on civil remedies does not prevent the court from using it to define reasonable care when the provision is designed to protect the class of persons that includes the plaintiff.
Supporting sources
A private plaintiff may recover damages only if the harm suffered is different in kind, not merely greater in degree, from the inconvenience experienced by the general public. Economic loss and reputational injury arising from a business use of the affected public space can qualify as special harm that supports an individual damages action.
Supporting sources
…R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 108 (5th ed. 1984), and argue that because the analogous express right of action includes a reliance requirement, see, e. g., § 18(a) of the 1934 Act, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78r(a), so too must an action implied under § 10(b). We agree that reliance is an element of…