Legal Opinion
Doe v. Chao
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 24, 2004No. 02-1377PublishedCited by 387 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Souter
The United States is subject to a cause of action for the benefit of at least some individuals adversely affected by a federal agency’s violation of the Privacy Act of 1974. The question before us is whether plaintiffs must prove some actual damages to qualify for a minimum statutory award of $1,000. We hold that they must.
HH
Petitioner Buck Doe filed for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 83 Stat. 792, 30 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., with the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, the division *617of the Department of Labor responsible for adjudicating it. The application form called for a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of EngineersSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by387 opinions
- Sussman v. United States Marshals ServiceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Federal Aviation Administration v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Hamdan v. RumsfeldSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Richard Beck v. Robert McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2017
- In Re Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. Data Breach LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
382 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.