holding that, where Congress uses identical text in two statutes having similar purposes, we pre- sume that Congress intended the same meaning
How later courts described this case
- holding that, where Congress uses identical text in two statutes having similar purposes, we pre- sume that Congress intended the same meaning
- holding "actual damages" does not include emotional distress damages as used in the Privacy Act of 1974, codified in part at 5 U.S.C. § 552a
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Order; Concurrence to Order by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.; Dissent to Order by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Opinion by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.
ORDER
The opinion filed February 22, 2010, and published at 596 F.3d 538 , is hereby amended by deleting footnote 2 (and renumbering succeeding footnotes) on pages 2825-26 of the slip opinion (also found at 596 F.3d 538, 543-44 ).
With this amendment, the panel votes to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge M. Smith votes to deny the petition *1019 for rehearing en banc, and Judges Bright and Hawkins so recommend.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. After a request for a vote by an active judge, a vote was taken, and a majority of the active judges of the court failed to vote for a rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).
The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. Further petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc shall not be entertained.