Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 1510 - Cagle v. Bruner

Cagle v. Bruner’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 1510 · 1997

Citation profile

171
cited by 171 later decisions
5
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably HCA Health Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Employers Health Insurance (2001), Kimber v. Thiokol Corp. (1999)

41 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions

8801997200020102020decided

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 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. · Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust Funds · Hermann Hospital v. Meba Medical & Benefits Plan · Northeast Department ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund

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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “if provider-assignees can sue for payment of benefits, an assignment will transfer the burden of bringing suit from plan participants and beneficiaries to 'providers[, who] are better situated and financed to pursue an action for benefits owed for their services.'”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “neither 1132(a) nor any other ERISA provision prevents derivative standing based upon an assignment of rights from an entity listed in that subsection.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he arbitrary and capricious standard of review would have little meaning if ambiguous language in an ERISA plan were construed against the Fund.”
    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.