Sunbeam-Oster Company Inc Group Benefits Plan for Salaried and Non-Bargaining Hourly Employees v. Whitehurst’s Empirical Analysis
102 F.3d 1368 · 1996
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Cagle v. Bruner (1997), Bombardier Aerospace Employee Welfare Benefits Plan v. Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough (2003)
33 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Fmc Corporation v. Holliday · National Educational Support Systems, Inc. v. Autoskill, Inc. · Evans v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]ar from the kind of silence that would be tantamount to ambiguity, the only silence here is the understandable absence of separate, specifically articulated rules for situations of partial recovery and total recovery with variations depending on the nature of the source of recovery. This signifies nothing more than that, regardless of source, the rule is the same for total and partial recoveries.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But the portion of the district court’s opinion and holding that gives us the most serious concern is that court’s admittedly res nova selection of the Make Whole rule as the appropriate default rule of construction for interpreting an ERISA plan’s reimbursement and subrogation rights .... [W]e have serious doubts whether we would ever approve or adopt the Make Whole rule as this circuit’s default rule for the priority of recovery in reimbursement or subrogation between an ERISA plan and its participant or beneficiary under circumstances such as the ones we consider today.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'as it would have any other contract claim--by looking to the terms of the plan and other manifestations of the parties' intent.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.