Anderson v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
11 F.3d 1311 · 1994
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (1995), Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc. (1999)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 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 Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · Miller v. Briggs
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right ... under the plan [or ERISA] ... [or] because he has given information ... relating to [ERISA,]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Congress may so completely preempt a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character,” and the case may be removed even if no federal claim is asserted in the complaint and federal preemption, raised as a defense, is the only issue of federal law implicated in the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan ... or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.... It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, or - discriminate against any person because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding related to this chapter....”
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.