Task: Text Completion
Input (English): whether a private right of action may be implied. In recent years the Supreme Court has substantially modified the four-part analysis in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2088, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), for determining whether an implied right of action has been created by any federal statute. The critical factor in the present analysis is whether there is an indication of any legislative intent to create a private remedy. See Middlesex County Sewage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Association, 453 U.S. 1, 13, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 2622-23, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981); Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliffe Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 639, 101 S.Ct. 2061, 2066, 68 L.Ed.2d 500 (1981). See also Local Division 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. MARTA, 667 F.2d 1327, 1335 (11th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). In this case this court can find no 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts (B) holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law (C) holding that absent a clear congressional statement courts should not infer that congress intended to alter equity practices (D) recognizing the supreme courts articulation of the new test and stating that the sole question now is whether there is clear evidence that congress intended to provide such a remedy (E) holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses
Output (English): (D)