메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1199-1247

Statutory proximate cause

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords


EID: 84871943530     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article
Times cited : (9)

References (138)
  • 3
    • 33750238722 scopus 로고
    • 21 HARV. L. REV. 383 (examining the relationship between legislation and judge-made law)
    • Roscoe Pound, Common Law and Legislation, 21 HARV. L. REV. 383 (1908) (examining the relationship between legislation and judge-made law).
    • (1908) Common Law and Legislation
    • Pound, R.1
  • 6
    • 0039233085 scopus 로고
    • 12 J. LEGAL STUD. 109 (endeavoring to analyze causation within an economic paradigm of torts)
    • William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Causation in Tort Law: An Economk Approach, 12 J. LEGAL STUD. 109 (1983) (endeavoring to analyze causation within an economic paradigm of torts)
    • (1983) Causation in Tort Law: An Economk Approach
    • Landes, W.M.1    Posner, R.A.2
  • 8
    • 0039233085 scopus 로고
    • 73 CAL. L. REV. 1735, (attempting to develop a "more satisfactory" explanation of causation)
    • Richard W. Wright, Causation in Tort Law, 73 CAL. L. REV. 1735, 1740 (1985) (attempting to develop a "more satisfactory" explanation of causation).
    • (1985) Causation in Tort Law , pp. 1740
    • Wright, R.W.1
  • 9
    • 0346449881 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 54 VAND. L. REV. 941, 945 (recognizing the overlap between different aspects of causation and arguing that cause-in-fact and normative judgments about liability should be clearly distinguished).
    • See Jane Stapleton, Legal Cause: Cause-in-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences, 54 VAND. L. REV. 941, 945 (2001) (recognizing the overlap between different aspects of causation and arguing that cause-in-fact and normative judgments about liability should be clearly distinguished).
    • (2001) Legal Cause: Cause-in-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences
    • Stapleton, J.1
  • 19
    • 77952327119 scopus 로고
    • 162 N.E. 99, 103 (N.Y.) (Andrews, J., dissenting)
    • See, e.g., Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 162 N.E. 99, 103 (N.Y. 1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting)
    • (1928) Palsgraf V. Long Island R.R. Co.
  • 23
    • 84878143742 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 547 U.S. 451, (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
    • See Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 469-70 (2006) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
    • (2006) Anza V. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. , pp. 469-470
  • 24
    • 84878154780 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 503 U.s. at 268-74
    • Holmes, 503 U.s. at 268-74).
    • Holmes
  • 27
    • 27844588668 scopus 로고
    • § 430 (indicating that to establish legal cause the plaintiff must be in the class of persons to which the defendant's actions create a risk of causing harm)
    • RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF TORTS § 430 (1934) (indicating that to establish legal cause the plaintiff must be in the class of persons to which the defendant's actions create a risk of causing harm)
    • (1934) Restatement (First) of Torts
  • 34
    • 0039570411 scopus 로고
    • (arguing for a more fluid notion of statutory interpretation)
    • WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., DYNAMIC STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (1994) (arguing for a more fluid notion of statutory interpretation)
    • (1994) Dynamic Statutory Interpretation
    • Eskridge Jr., W.N.1
  • 35
    • 0043233865 scopus 로고
    • generally, 87 MICH. L. REV. 20 (describing various statutory interpretation techniques)
    • See generally T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Updating Statutory Interpretation, 87 MICH. L. REV. 20 (1988) (describing various statutory interpretation techniques).
    • (1988) Updating Statutory Interpretation
    • Alexander Aleinikoff, T.1
  • 36
    • 84878159765 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 (considering proximate cause under USERRA when proximate cause is not needed to resolve the question before the Court)
    • See, e, g., Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 (2011) (considering proximate cause under USERRA when proximate cause is not needed to resolve the question before the Court).
    • (2011) Staub V. Proctor Hosp.
  • 37
    • 0345753032 scopus 로고
    • 96 YALE L.J. 743 (discussing how deconstructionist principles apply to interpretation)
    • J.M. Balkin, Deconstructive Practice and Legal Theory, 96 YALE L.J. 743 (1987) (discussing how deconstructionist principles apply to interpretation)
    • (1987) Deconstructive Practice and Legal Theory
    • Balkin, J.M.1
  • 39
    • 32044457967 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 106 COLUM. L. REV. 70, 78 (noting that the line between textualism and purposivism is not "cut-and-dried")
    • See John F. Manning, What Divides Textualists from Purposivists, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 70, 78 (2006) (noting that the line between textualism and purposivism is not "cut-and-dried")
    • (2006) What Divides Textualists from Purposivists
    • Manning, J.F.1
  • 40
    • 18444417148 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 91 VA. L. REV. 347
    • Caleb Nelson, What Is Textualism?, 91 VA. L. REV. 347, 355-56 (2005)
    • (2005) What Is Textualism? , pp. 355-356
    • Nelson, C.1
  • 43
    • 70649097995 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 24 CONST. COMMENT. 427, 429 n.6 (noting that textualists, purposivists and intentionalists disagree about how and whether to recognize gaps and what to do if the statute has gaps, or vague or ambiguous provisions)
    • See Jack M. Balkin, Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption, 24 CONST. COMMENT. 427, 429 n.6 (noting that textualists, purposivists and intentionalists disagree about how and whether to recognize gaps and what to do if the statute has gaps, or vague or ambiguous provisions).
    • Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption
    • Balkin, J.M.1
  • 45
    • 78649613109 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 98 CAL. L. REV. 1287 (exploring the evolution of textualism and critiques of first-generation textualism's premises)
    • See John F. Manning, Second-Generation Textualism, 98 CAL. L. REV. 1287 (2010) (exploring the evolution of textualism and critiques of first-generation textualism's premises)
    • (2010) Second-Generation Textualism
    • Manning, J.F.1
  • 46
    • 0347513727 scopus 로고
    • 37 UCLA L. REV. 621 (examining new textualism in comparison to the traditional approach)
    • see also William N. Eskridge, Jr., The New Textualism, 37 UCLA L. REV. 621 (1990) (examining new textualism in comparison to the traditional approach)
    • (1990) The New Textualism
    • Eskridge Jr., W.N.1
  • 47
    • 78649591260 scopus 로고
    • 73 WASH. U. L.Q. 1085, 1087, 1090 (discussing "new textualism" and its tendency to merge with other interpretive methods)
    • Philip P. Frickey, Faithful Interpretation, 73 WASH. U. L.Q. 1085, 1087, 1090 (1995) (discussing "new textualism" and its tendency to merge with other interpretive methods)
    • (1995) Faithful Interpretation
    • Frickey, P.P.1
  • 51
    • 84859387507 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 405 F.3d 840, 846 n.6 (10th Cir.) (noting that definitions in statute must be read broadly to effectuate the statute's liberal purpose)
    • See Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. EEOC, 405 F.3d 840, 846 n.6 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that definitions in statute must be read broadly to effectuate the statute's liberal purpose).
    • (2005) Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs V. EEOC
  • 58
    • 84873091177 scopus 로고
    • Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843
    • See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984).
    • (1984) Inc. V. Natural Res. Def. Council
  • 59
    • 84878159765 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 (applying proximate cause to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA))
    • See, e.g., Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 (2011) (applying proximate cause to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA))
    • (2011) Staub V. Proctor Hosp.
  • 60
    • 84878143742 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 547 U.S. 451, 453 (restating that proximate cause is required to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO))
    • Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 453 (2006) (restating that proximate cause is required to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO))
    • (2006) Anza V. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
  • 61
    • 71949127214 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 544 U.S. 336, (requiring proximate cause for claims involving securities fraud)
    • Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342-346 (2005) (requiring proximate cause for claims involving securities fraud)
    • (2005) Dura Pharms., Inc. V. Broudo , pp. 342-346
  • 62
    • 74249121761 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 542 U.S. 692, (examining proximate causation with respect to the Federal Tort Claims Act)
    • Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 703-04 (2004) (examining proximate causation with respect to the Federal Tort Claims Act)
    • (2004) Sosa V. Alvarez-Machain , pp. 703-704
  • 63
    • 84878119136 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 538 U.S. 314, (Thomas, J., dissenting) (discussing proximate causation as being required by language in the Bankruptcy Code)
    • Archer v. Warner, 538 U.S. 314, 325-26 (2003) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (discussing proximate causation as being required by language in the Bankruptcy Code)
    • (2003) Archer V. Warner , pp. 325-326
  • 64
    • 84878162435 scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. 258, (requiring proximate cause for a successful claim under RICO)
    • Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 267-68 (1992) (requiring proximate cause for a successful claim under RICO)
    • (1992) Holmes V. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. , pp. 267-268
  • 65
    • 84878138226 scopus 로고
    • Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., 459 U.S. 519, 535-36 (discussing proximate cause in relation to a claim under the Clayton Act)
    • Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 535-36 (1983) (discussing proximate cause in relation to a claim under the Clayton Act)
    • (1983) Inc. V. Cal. State Council of Carpenters
  • 66
    • 77955536206 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 541 U.S. 752, 767 (reasoning that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a causal standard similar to proximate cause)
    • see also, e.g., Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004) (reasoning that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a causal standard similar to proximate cause)
    • (2004) Dep't of Transp. V. Pub. Citizen
  • 67
    • 84878156046 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 517 U.S. 830, (discussing proximate cause in admiralty context, not in statutory context)
    • Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U.S. 830, 839-41 (1996) (discussing proximate cause in admiralty context, not in statutory context)
    • (1996) Exxon Co., U.S.A. V. Sofec, Inc. , pp. 839-841
  • 68
    • 77950473969 scopus 로고
    • for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 713 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (discussing proximate causation as related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA))
    • Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 713 (1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (discussing proximate causation as related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA))
    • (1995) Babbitt V. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys
  • 69
    • 84860168610 scopus 로고
    • 513 U.S. 527, (discussing whether language in the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act required proximate causation)
    • Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 536-37 (1995) (discussing whether language in the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act required proximate causation).
    • (1995) Inc. V. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. , pp. 536-537
    • Grubart, J.B.1
  • 70
    • 84876807012 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 2630, (refusing to import traditional common law proximate cause into FELA, but holding that the statutory language has a different proximate cause limit)
    • see, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630, 2641-44 (2011) (refusing to import traditional common law proximate cause into FELA, but holding that the statutory language has a different proximate cause limit).
    • (2011) CSX Transp., Inc. V. McBride , pp. 2641-2644
  • 72
    • 84878117908 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. at 266-68
    • See Holmes, 503 U.S. at 266-68.
    • Holmes
  • 74
    • 84878150082 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. at 258
    • See Holmes, 503 U.S. at 258.
    • Holmes
  • 75
    • 84878164090 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. at 266 n.10
    • See Holmes, 503 U.S. at 266 n.10.
    • Holmes
  • 77
    • 84878146310 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. at 267
    • Holmes, 503 U.S. at 267.
    • Holmes
  • 78
    • 84876635629 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Pub. L. No. 103-3, 107 Stat. 6 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 and 29 U.S.C.)
    • See, e.g, Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-3, 107 Stat. 6 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 and 29 U.S.C.)
    • Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
  • 81
    • 77950482870 scopus 로고
    • 467 U.S. 837 (considering several cases regarding the method of enactment by States of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations)
    • See, e.g., Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (considering several cases regarding the method of enactment by States of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations)
    • (1984) Chevron U.S.A. Inc. V. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.
  • 83
    • 84878146451 scopus 로고
    • W. Va. Univ. Hosps., 499 U.S. 83, 101 n.7 (indicating that the will of Congress is a "will expressed and fixed in a particular enactment")
    • See W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 101 n.7 (1990) (indicating that the will of Congress is a "will expressed and fixed in a particular enactment").
    • (1990) Inc. V. Casey
  • 87
    • 84878155715 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. at 268
    • Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268.
    • Holmes
  • 88
    • 84878143237 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 656 F.3d 359, 362 (6th Cir.)
    • See Hirsch v. CSX Transp., Inc., 656 F.3d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 2011).
    • (2011) Hirsch V. CSX Transp., Inc.
  • 89
    • 84878132719 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 (noting that USERRA is very similar to Title VII)
    • See Staubv. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186,1191 (2011) (noting that USERRA is very similar to Title VII).
    • (2011) Staubv. Proctor Hosp.
  • 90
    • 84878130843 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 514 F.3d 217, 228 n.11 (2d Cir.) (noting independent contractors are not protected by Title VII)
    • Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp., 514 F.3d 217, 228 n.11 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting independent contractors are not protected by Title VII).
    • (2008) Salamon V. Our Lady of Victory Hosp.
  • 91
    • 80053357755 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • generally, 110 MICH. L. REV. 69 (arguing that courts have narrowly construed Title VII's language to restrict the types of prohibited conduct)
    • See generally Sandra F. Sperino, Rethinking Discrimination Law, 110 MICH. L. REV. 69 (2011) (arguing that courts have narrowly construed Title VII's language to restrict the types of prohibited conduct).
    • (2011) Rethinking Discrimination Law
    • Sperino, S.F.1
  • 92
    • 84878159981 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 655 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir.)
    • See, e.g., Brooks v. Midwest Heart Grp., 655 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2011).
    • (2011) Brooks V. Midwest Heart Grp.
  • 94
    • 84878154982 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Associated Gen. 459 U.S. at 534 (internal quotations omitted)
    • Associated Gen. Contractors, 459 U.S. at 534 (internal quotations omitted).
    • Contractors
  • 95
    • 84878154982 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Associated Cen. 459 U.S. at 532, n.24 & 533
    • Associated Cen. Contractors, 459 U.S. at 532, n.24 & 533.
    • Contractors
  • 96
    • 84878138648 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1193
    • See Staub v. Procter Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1193 (2011).
    • (2011) Staub V. Procter Hosp.
  • 97
    • 84878159215 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • It also cited, 542 U.S. 692
    • It also cited Sosa v. Alvarez-Macham, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).
    • (2004) Sosa V. Alvarez-Macham
  • 98
    • 84878149542 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. at 1192 (citing Sosa, 542 U.S. at 704)
    • See Staub, 131 S. Ct. at 1192 (citing Sosa, 542 U.S. at 704).
    • Staub
  • 99
    • 77950491923 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 90 B.U. L REV. 51, 53 (describing patent law as a "common law enabling statute.")
    • Craig Allen Nard, Legal Forms and the Common Law of Patents, 90 B.U. L REV. 51, 53 (2010) (describing patent law as a "common law enabling statute.").
    • (2010) Legal Forms and the Common Law of Patents
    • Nard, C.A.1
  • 100
    • 84878141894 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • The Conflict Between Textualism and Antitrust, 14J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 619, 620
    • Daniel A. Farber & Brett H. McDonnell, "Is There a Text in This Class?" The Conflict Between Textualism and Antitrust, 14J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 619, 620 (2005).
    • (2005) Is There A Text in This Class?
    • Farber, D.A.1    McDonnell, B.H.2
  • 102
    • 77953264171 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 96 VA. L. REV. 485, 519 (arguing the courts should not apply equitable balancing in statutory cases)
    • Jared A. Goldstein, Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes, 96 VA. L. REV. 485, 519 (2010) (arguing the courts should not apply equitable balancing in statutory cases).
    • (2010) Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes
    • Goldstein, J.A.1
  • 103
    • 77950473969 scopus 로고
    • 515 U.S. 687, 712 (holding that "harm" can include habitat modification)
    • See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 712 (1995) (holding that "harm" can include habitat modification).
    • (1995) Babbitt V. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for A Great Or.
  • 104
    • 84878158264 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 5. Ct. 1186, 1191 ("[W]hen Congress creates a federal tort it adopts the background of general tort law.")
    • See Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 5. Ct. 1186, 1191 (2011) ("[W]hen Congress creates a federal tort it adopts the background of general tort law.").
    • (2011) Staub V. Proctor Hosp.
  • 106
    • 84878150328 scopus 로고
    • 21 TEX. L. REV. 697, (noting that it is of little value to say that a "tort is something that is actionable but is neither a contract nor a quasi-contract")
    • Max Radin, A Speculative Inquiry into the Nature of Torts, 21 TEX. L. REV. 697, 698-99 (1943) (noting that it is of little value to say that a "tort is something that is actionable but is neither a contract nor a quasi-contract").
    • (1943) A Speculative Inquiry into the Nature of Torts , pp. 698-99
    • Radin, M.1
  • 107
    • 84878130843 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 514 F.3d 217, 228 n.11 (2d Cir.) (noting independent contractors are not protected by Title VII)
    • Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp., 514 F.3d 217, 228 n.11 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting independent contractors are not protected by Title VII).
    • (2008) Salamon V. Our Lady of Victory Hosp.
  • 108
    • 79955886575 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654
    • See, e.g., Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2006).
    • (2006) Family and Medical Leave Act
  • 109
    • 0345847813 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 75 TEX. L. REV. 1765, 1773 n.30 (stating that the rule of proximate cause is so broad in intentional torts that it almost has "the full reach of factual causation")
    • David W. Robertson, The Common Sense of Cause in Fact, 75 TEX. L. REV. 1765, 1773 n.30 (1997) (stating that the rule of proximate cause is so broad in intentional torts that it almost has "the full reach of factual causation").
    • (1997) The Common Sense of Cause in Fact
    • Robertson, D.W.1
  • 110
    • 84878159765 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191
    • Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 (2011)
    • (2011) Staub V. Proctor Hosp.
  • 112
    • 84878159567 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 48 WM. & MARY L. REV. 2115, 2147 (noting that discrimination claims "often articulate a type of injury-disproportionately experienced by members of subordinated groups-that cannot be pinned down as psychological, economic, or physical in nature, or as either individual or group based")
    • For some statutes, it may be even more difficult to characterize the harms. Martha Chamallas, Discrimination and Outrage: The Migration from Civil Rights to Tort Law, 48 WM. & MARY L. REV. 2115, 2147 (2007) (noting that discrimination claims "often articulate a type of injury-disproportionately experienced by members of subordinated groups-that cannot be pinned down as psychological, economic, or physical in nature, or as either individual or group based").
    • (2007) Discrimination and Outrage: The Migration from Civil Rights to Tort Law
    • Chamallas, M.1
  • 113
    • 84878159765 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1193
    • Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1193 (2011).
    • (2011) Staub V. Proctor Hosp.
  • 114
    • 84878155131 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Inc., 656 F.3d 359, 362 (6th Cir.) (describing elements of negligence)
    • See, e.g., Hirsch v. CSX Transp., Inc., 656 F.3d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 2011) (describing elements of negligence).
    • (2011) Hirsch V. CSX Transp.
  • 117
    • 0036994162 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 50 UCLA L. REV. 293, 300 (arguing that proximate cause is two doctrines: one focusing on multiple causes and one focusing on cases with multiple risks)
    • Mark F. Grady, Proximate Cause Decoded, 50 UCLA L. REV. 293, 300 (2002) (arguing that proximate cause is two doctrines: one focusing on multiple causes and one focusing on cases with multiple risks).
    • (2002) Proximate Cause Decoded
    • Grady, M.F.1
  • 118
    • 84901592727 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 249 F.3d 1068, 1070-71 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing how the district court used the proximate cause standard from RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 431 (1965) to evaluate proximate cause)
    • See, e.g., Service Emps. Int'l Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 249 F.3d 1068, 1070-71 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (discussing how the district court used the proximate cause standard from RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 431 (1965) to evaluate proximate cause)
    • (2001) Service Emps. Int'l Union Health & Welfare Fund V. Philip Morris, Inc.
  • 119
    • 84878118205 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • No. 2:07-CV-64, 2009 WL 2170146, at 7-8 (E.D. Tenn. July 21,)
    • Quade v. Rodriguez, No. 2:07-CV-64, 2009 WL 2170146, at 7-8 (E.D. Tenn. July 21, 2009).
    • (2009) Quade V. Rodriguez
  • 120
    • 84878138266 scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. 258, 266 (stating that it is very unlikely that "Congress meant to allow all factually injured plaintiffs to recover" and thus RICO should not be read expansively)
    • See Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 266 (1992) (stating that it is very unlikely that "Congress meant to allow all factually injured plaintiffs to recover" and thus RICO should not be read expansively)
    • (1992) Holmes V. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.
  • 121
    • 84878119472 scopus 로고
    • ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1-7 (2006))
    • Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1-7 (2006))
    • (1890) Sherman Act
  • 122
    • 84900424706 scopus 로고
    • Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (2006))
    • Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (1970) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (2006)).
    • (1970) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
  • 125
    • 84878145464 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 503 U.S. at 268
    • Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268.
    • Holmes
  • 126
    • 84878147650 scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1192 n.2 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§ 435, 435B, cmt. a)
    • Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1192 n.2 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§ 435, 435B, cmt. a (1965)).
    • (1965) Staub V. Proctor Hosp.
  • 127
    • 84878144245 scopus 로고
    • W. Va. Univ. Hosps., 499 U.S. 83, (articulating that the court should interpret ambiguous terms in light of recent and past legislation as it is the court's role "to make sense... out of the corpus juris"). This inquiry also overlaps with statutory interpretation methodologies
    • W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 100-01 (1991) (articulating that the court should interpret ambiguous terms in light of recent and past legislation as it is the court's role "to make sense... out of the corpus juris"). This inquiry also overlaps with statutory interpretation methodologies.
    • (1991) Inc. V. Casey , pp. 100-101
  • 128
    • 69749123578 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • generally, 81 TEMP L. REV. 635 (considering whether new or modified rules of interpretation should be applied only prospectively or also retrospectively)
    • See generally Brian G. Slocum, Overlooked Temporal Issues in Statutory Interpretation, 81 TEMP L. REV. 635 (2008) (considering whether new or modified rules of interpretation should be applied only prospectively or also retrospectively)
    • (2008) Overlooked Temporal Issues in Statutory Interpretation
    • Slocum, B.G.1
  • 129
    • 84878157798 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • CSX Transp., 131 S. Ct. 2630, 2637 (noting that common law proximate cause "formulations varied, and were often both constricted and difficult to comprehend")
    • CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 131 S. Ct. 2630, 2637 (2011) (noting that common law proximate cause "formulations varied, and were often both constricted and difficult to comprehend").
    • (2011) Inc. V. McBride
  • 130
    • 84878158199 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 586 S.E.2d 26, 29 (Ga. Ct. App.)
    • John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 586 S.E.2d 26, 29 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
    • (2003) Inc. V. Jones
    • Crane, J.1
  • 131
    • 77952327119 scopus 로고
    • 162 N.E. 99, 103 (N.Y.) (Andrews, J., dissenting)
    • Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 162 N.E. 99, 103 (N.Y. 1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting).
    • (1928) Palsgraf V. Long Island R.R.
  • 132
    • 77951690665 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Introduction (discussing how courts import common law principles into statutory analysis but vary the underlying principles given the particular statutory regime)
    • See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY, Introduction (2006) (discussing how courts import common law principles into statutory analysis but vary the underlying principles given the particular statutory regime).
    • (2006) Restatement (Third) of Agency
  • 134
    • 84878159765 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191-93
    • Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1191-93 (2011).
    • (2011) Staub V. Proctor Hosp.
  • 137
    • 84878126153 scopus 로고
    • 67 N.C. L. REV. 77
    • The inconsistent theoretical foundations of proximate cause and its changing nature make it difficult to define for juries. Jurors often misunderstand proximate cause instructions. Walter W. & Elizabeth C. Thornburg, Juiy Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate, 67 N.C. L. REV. 77, 88-95 (1988).
    • (1988) Juiy Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate , pp. 88-95
    • Walter, W.1    Thornburg, E.C.2
  • 138
    • 77950305050 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2664-65, 2672 (deciding statutory question first and declining to reach constitutional issue)
    • See, e.g., Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2664-65, 2672 (2009) (deciding statutory question first and declining to reach constitutional issue).
    • (2009) Ricci V. DeStefano


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.