# Cooper v. Federal Aviation Administration

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 16, 2010 · 622 F.3d 1016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438382

## Case

- **Full name:** Stanmore Cawthon COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Social Security Administration; United States Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 16, 2010
- **Citations:** 622 F.3d 1016; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19622; 2010 WL 3584055
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** O'Scannlain, Bright, Hawkins, Smith
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438382

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, where Congress uses identical text in two statutes having similar purposes, we pre- sume that Congress intended the same meaning
- holding that, where Congress uses identical text in two statutes having similar purposes, we presume 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438382. Public record. Not legal advice.