Golas v. Homeview Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
106 F.3d 1 · 1997
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2015
6 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Koon v. United States · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) No ERISA benefits are sought and no ERISA rights or obligations are asserted. (2) Defendant ... would be personally responsible for any money damages awarded to plaintiff. (3) Defendant ... is not an ERISA entity, nor does the alleged misrepresentation claim affect the relationship between ERISA entities. (4) None of the three categories of state laws that Travelers holds Congress intended to pre-empt are implicated. (5) The common-law claim of misrepresentation is a state law of general application. Moreover, tort law in general is traditionally an area of state regulation. It is therefore unlikely that Congress intended to intrude into this area by pre-emption. (6) Congress did not intend to shield tortfeasors from liability for misrepresentation where ERISA benefits, rights, obligations, and core concerns are not implicated. (7) State common law imposes a duty of care relative to representations made by insurance professionals which does not in any way depend upon ERISA. (8) The alleged misrepresentation occurred prior to the time when the ERISA plan would have taken effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[pllaintiff wished to add a defendant to a case which was being dismissed as to the two original defendants.” Id. at 2-3 . Though this Court does not reiterate the entire procedural context here, it notes that the appeal before the First Circuit was based on the decision of the district court to deny Golas the opportunity to amend her complaint to add an insurance broker as a party to the case. Id. at 3 . The majority in Golas emphasized that it”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f a motion is made to add [the insurance broker] to the ERISA action, the court will have the ability to consider the preemption issue anew in light of the facts that have been developed in discovery.”). The First Circuit, noting review on these grounds was for abuse of discretion, explained that even under de novo review, it could affirm the decision of the district court if there was”
1 later decision 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.