green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 19×
87.0 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2009–2015 ·
…following deregulation, the cab's statements implementing the ada strongly support the view that the ada was concerned solely with economic deregulation, not with displacing state tort law.
at p. 337
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
National Federation of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
But see Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (holding that “Congress intended to de-regulate as ‘services’” “items such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself”); see also Bower v. Egyptair Airlines Co., 731 F.3d 44 NAT’L FED.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lee v. Golf Transportation, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
laws of general applicability, even those consistent with federal law, are preempted if they have the 'forbidden significant effect' on rates, routes or services.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Day v. SkyWest Airlines
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
significantly, too, neither the ada nor its legislative history indicates that congress intended to displace the application of state tort law to personal physical injury inflicted by aircraft operations, or that congress even considered such preemption.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gauthier v. Hard to Stop LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
laws of general applicability, even those consistent with federal law, are preempted if they have the 'forbidden significant effect' on rates, routes or services.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bertram v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co
a complete preemption of state law in this area would have rendered any requirement of insurance coverage nugatory.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gillum v. High Standard, LLC
either the ada nor its legislative history indicates that congress intended to displace the application of state tort law to personal physical injury inflicted by aircraft operations, or that congress even considered such preemption.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Schmidt v. Tavenner’s Towing & Recovery
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a complete preemption of state law in would have rendered any requirement of insurance coverage nugatory.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Amerijet International, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Florida
the federal aviation agency ... identifies 'service' or 'services' in its regulations to incorporate the accoutrements of the passenger - or shipper- and carrier contract.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Michael J. DeLitta v. Nancy Schaefer
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
following deregulation, the cab's statements implementing the ada strongly support the view that the ada was concerned solely with economic deregulation, not with displacing state tort law.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Paredes v. Air-Serv Corp., Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
a complete preemption of state law would have rendered any requirement of insurance coverage nugatory.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc., George Pirkle, and Robert Pirkle v. American Airlines, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
following deregulation, the cab's statements implementing the ada strongly support the view that the ada was concerned solely with economic deregulation, not with displacing state tort law.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
following deregulation, the cab's statements implementing the ada strongly support the view that the ada was concerned solely with economic deregulation, not with displacing state tort law.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc., George Pirkle, and Robert Pirkle v. American Airlines, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
following deregulation, the cab's statements implementing the ada strongly support the view that the ada was concerned solely with economic deregulation, not with displacing state tort law.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
AIR TRANSPORT ASS'N OF AMERICA, INC. v. Cuomo
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
nterpretation of the statutory language is the key to construing its preemptive force.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Air Transport Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Cuomo
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
interpretation of the statutory language is the key to construing its preemptive force.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Eric Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Company, Raytheon Travel Air, and Flight Options, L.L.C.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
elements of the air carrier service bargain include items such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
elements of the air carrier service bargain include items such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Witty v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
morales relied in part on the fact that the state restrictions on airfare advertising had a significant economic effect on fares.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
services' generally represent a bargained-for ... provision of labor from one party to another.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Scott v. Milosevic
either the ada nor its legislative history indicates that congress intended to displace the application of state tort law to personal physical injury inflicted by aircraft operations, or that congress even considered such preemption.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lavine v. American Airlines
(2×)
Ass’n of Am. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218, 223 (2d Cir. 2008) (provision of food, water, electricity, and restrooms to passengers during lengthy ground delays relates to service); Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (“Elements of the air carrier service bargain include items such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself.” But tort actions for personal physical injuries or property damage caused by the operation and maintenance of aircraft are not preempted.); Travel All …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Odynocki v. Delta Air Lines Inc
(2×)
In 1978, Congress enacted the ADA,20 an amendment to the FAA, with the purpose of dismantling federal economic regulation of air carriers after determining that “efficiency, innovation, low prices, variety, and quality would be promoted by reliance on competitive market forces rather than pervasive federal regulation.” Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 335 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ProKasro Services USA, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA) Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Congress’s silence regarding the ADA’s potential displacement of state tort laws ‘takes on added significance in light of Congress’s failure to provide any federal remedy for [plaintiffs] injured by such conduct,’ because it ‘is difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct.’” Id. (quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Campbell Clegg v. American Airlines, Inc.
See Wolens, 513 U.S. at 222, 233 (the act “allows room for court enforcement of contract terms set by the parties themselves” with “no enlargement or enhancement based on state laws or policies external to the agreement”). 6 plaintiff’s claims regarding the airline’s failure at check-in and boarding to prevent the abduction of the plaintiff’s children related to the airline’s “services”); Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 339 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (allowing claims alleging wrongful exclusions from flights “would result in significant de facto regulation of …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pennsylvania Insurance Company v. Federal Express Corp.
The majority of circuits has held the term “service” as used in the ADA refers to the “bargained-for or anticipated provision of labor from one party to another.” See Headstream Technologies, LLC v. FedEx Corporation, 2023 WL 1434054 (6th Cir. 2023); Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995); see Watson v. Air Methods Corp., 870 F.3d 812, 817-18 (8th Cir. 2017); Air Transp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zajac v. United Airlines Inc.
Moreover, where the alleged consumer law violation concerns the manner of transportation itself, then the law implicates an airline’s provision of “services.” Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 4 F.3d 1 This does not mean that a customer is wholly without recourse when an airline uses deceptive advertising.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Helicopter Association International v. State of Hawai'i
With respect to “services,” the Ninth Circuit has adopted a relatively narrow definition of the term for purposes of ADA preemption, as the “prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo, or mail.” Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (adopting a broader definition of “service,” including “items such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
EMMETT v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SCHNUR v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION
Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shaw v. United Parcel Service Inc
Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 335 (5th Cir. 1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. McVey
To start, the Supreme Court has found state laws that limit programs which eliminate or reduce the cost of a flight or class-of-service upgrade relate to rates and “services.” See Ginsberg, 572 U.S. at 284 ; Wolens, 513 U.S. at 226 ; (but see ECF No. 63 at 24 (arguing that Wolens suggests that “service” is categorically limited to “access to flights and class-of-service upgrades”).) Further, Defendant relies, in part, upon Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc), to elucidate what it believes are the types of activities that should define the scope of …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gulley v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.
Fla. Nov. 14, 2018); cf. Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (noting that Congress’ failure to provide remedies in the ADA for injuries stemming from negligent acts “takes on added significance” because it is “difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morgan v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.
Fla. Nov. 14, 2018); cf. Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (noting that Congress’ failure to provide remedies in the ADA for injuries stemming from negligent acts “takes on added significance” because it is “difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pruitt v. Hansen & Adkins, Inc.
Fla. Nov. 14, 2018); cf. Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (noting that Congress’ failure to provide remedies in the ADA for injuries stemming from negligent acts “takes on added significance” because it is “difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gulley v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.
Fla. Nov. 14, 2018); cf. Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (noting that Congress’ failure to provide remedies in the ADA for injuries stemming from negligent acts “takes on added significance” because it is “difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dunnavant v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.
Fla. Nov. 14, 2018); cf. Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (noting that Congress’ failure to provide remedies in the ADA for injuries stemming from negligent acts “takes on added significance” because it is “difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse for those injured by illegal conduct”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peterson v. Rodriguez
Simply put, Defendant has failed to show that Congress intended to ‘“displace the application of state tort law to personal physical injury inflicted’ by brokers.” See Lyles, 2023 WL 3318695 , at *4 (quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding the Airline Deregulation Act, which tracks the FAAAA preemption clause, did not completely preempt state law)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gregg v. Rodriguez
Simply put, Defendant has failed to show that Congress intended to ‘“displace the application of state tort law to personal physical injury inflicted’ by brokers.” See Lyles, 2023 WL 3318695 , at *4 (quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding the Airline Deregulation Act, which tracks the FAAAA preemption clause, did not completely preempt state law)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Air Transport Association of America Inc. v. Healey
Express Corp., 775 F.3d 448, 453 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lyles v. Wren
Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding the Airline Deregulation Act, which tracks the FAAAA preemption clause, did not completely preempt state law).4 The Court finds that PT has not met its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of complete preemption.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montgomery v. Delta Air Lines
It is these [contractual] features of air transportation that we believe Congress intended to de-regulate as ‘services’ and broadly to protect from state regulation. 6 Case: 22-10692 Document: 00516669327 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/08/2023 No. 22-10692 Onoh, 613 F.3d at 599–600 (alteration in original) (citing Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Headstream Tech., LLC v. FedEx Corp.
(2×)
As a majority of our sister circuits has held, the term “service” as used in the ADA refers to the “bargained-for or anticipated provision of labor from one party to another.” Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995); see Watson v. Air Methods Corp., 870 F.3d 812 , -6- No. 22-1410, Headstream Technologies, LLC v. FedEx Corp., et al. 817-18 (8th Cir. 2017); Air Transp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Estate of Ann Eva Wray v. Kennedy Brothers Logistics, Inc.
(DE 1-1) ¶¶ 121-122); 49 U.S.C. § 13102 (2) (defining a broker as one who “sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation by motor carrier for compensation”). such conduct.” Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (concluding the same with respect to the ADA).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Madison Rose Mergl v. Lee
The absence of such language “takes on added significance in light of Congress’s failure to provide any federal remedy for persons injured by such conduct.” Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (concluding the same with respect to the ADA).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Seklecki v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kislov v. American Airlines, Inc.
Airline Services The threshold issue is whether Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims implicate an activity covered by the ADA’s preemption provision—specifically, airline “services.” The Seventh Circuit has adopted a broad definition of “services,” concluding that it refers to “a bargained-for or anticipated provision of labor from one party to another.” Travel All Over the World, 73 F.3d at 1433 (quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kreith v. American Airlines, Inc.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has defined “services” to “include such items as ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself.” Travel All Over the World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1433 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)).3 Defendant’s contend that Kreith’s IIED claim relates to its service because it “is based, in part, on [American’s] decision to remove [Kreith] from the airplane and refusal to rebook him.” Mem. a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Day v. SkyWest Airlines
(2×)
Airport Auth. v. F.A.A., 242 F.3d 1213, 1221-1222 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)). 45 Hodges, 44 F.3d at 336 (emphasis added). 46 Gardner v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-00125-JNP-DBP, 316 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1318 (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Tasb Risk Management Fund, Transportation Insurance Company, Truck Insurance Exchange, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Valley Forge Insurance Company v. Phi Air Medical, LLC
Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (“Laws of general applicability, even those consistent with federal law, are preempted if they have the ‘forbidden significant effect’ on rates . . . .”); see also, e.g., Air Evac, 910 F.3d at 767 ; Bailey v. Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC, 889 F.3d 1259, 1271 (11th Cir. 2018); EagleMed LLC v. Cox, 868 F.3d 893, 902 (10th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he court only needs to decide whether a particular state law or claim has a ‘forbidden significant economic effect on airline rates . . .’ when the state law at issue does n…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
France v. Trans States Airlines, LLC
Corp., 251 P.3d 1239, 1249 (Colo. App. 2010) (concluding ADA successor did not preempt Colorado common law claim for negligence for personal injuries when passenger in a wheelchair fell to ground from a jetway, in part because airlines are required to maintain either liability insurance or self-insurance); Charas, 160 F.3d at 1265 (insurance requirement would be “pointless” unless some state tort actions survived enactment of the ADA); Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 338 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that federal preemption of state laws, including certain common law actions “rel…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hodges
v.
Delta Airlines, Inc.
v.
Delta Airlines, Inc.
91-06037.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 12, 1994.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Iowa (1)
Frances S. HODGES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Charles E. Gene SMITH and Joan Smith, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC., and Connie Lynn Weaver,
Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 91-6037, 91-6070.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 12, 1994.
David W. Showalter, Bellaire, TX, Stuart J. Starry, Fleming, Hovenhamp & Grayson, Houston, TX, for plaintiff-appellant Frances S. Hodges.
Jeffrey Robert White, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, in favor of appellant (ATLA).
David R. Weiner, Dallas, TX, amicus curiae, in favor of appellant (TTLA).
Jennifer Bruch Hogan, William J. Boyce, Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, TX, for defendant-appellee Delta Airlines, Inc.
Joe K. Mitchell and Alison Pettiette, Houston, TX, for plaintiffs-appellants Charles E. Gene Smith and Joan Smith.
Jennifer Bruch Hogan, William J. Boyce and Winstol D. Carter, Jr., Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, TX, for defendants-appellees American West Airlines and Connie Lynn Weaver.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion October 10, 1993,
5 Cir., 1993, 4 F.3d 350)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHE, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.[*]
BY THE COURT:
[*~334]1
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
[*~343]2
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
*
Judge King is recused, and therefore did not participate in this decision