MATTIO

v.

LOUISIANA

Citator

Cited By

• Fielding v. Allen, 181 F.2d 163 (2d Cir. 1950)
  …on as to the merits of the claims asserted. We merely affirm their federal nature. The appellee urges that the conclusion at which we have arrived is at variance with the result reached in Downing v. Howard, 3 Cir., 162 F. 2d 654, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 818, 68 S.Ct. 155, 92 L.Ed. 395. That was a derivative suit in which federal, jurisdiction was sought to be based on alleged violations of section 25 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 15 U.S.C.A. § 79y. It was held that section 25 gave…
• Donnell Douglas v. Sigler, 386 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1967)
  …ed States, 287 U.S. 216, 53 S.Ct. 154, 77 L.Ed. 266.” Generally, good-time and parole statutes are accorded similar treatment and are considered as resting upon the same legislative basis. Evans v. Hunter, 162 F. 2d 800 (10 Cir. 1947), cert. denied 332 U.S. 818, 68 S.Ct. 144, 92 L.Ed. 395, recognized the constitutionality of the federal good-time release statute that provides a conditional release for accumulated good time and that the prisoner is to be treated as though released on parole and subject to a…
• Spirt v. Bechtel, 232 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1956)
  …e a private right of action it must be the intent of the enactment “exclusively or in part to protect an interest of the [plaintiff].” See also Restatement of Torts § 288(a); Downing v. Howard, 3 Cir., 1947, 162 F. 2d 654, 657-658, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 818, 68 S.Ct. 155, 92 L.Ed. 395. Since the statute we are here considering was not intended or designed to protect the plaintiff’s interest, there is no civil right of action. Moreover in each of the cases relied on by Judge FRANK we assumed that the c…