Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 F.3d 656 - Brehmer v. Inland Steel Industries Pension Plan

Brehmer v. Inland Steel Industries Pension Plan’s Empirical Analysis

114 F.3d 656 · 1997

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
January 2025
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc. (2003), Ellis v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (1997)

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1501997200020102020decided

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 · Halpin v. Ww Grainger Incorporated · Donato v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · Fuller v. CBT Corp. · Trombetta v. Cragin Federal Bank for Savings Employee Stock Ownership Plan

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

  1. “If a claim for Group Life Insurance benefits is denied, the insurance company will write to your beneficiary or legal representative within 90 days after receipt of the claim to explain the reasons for the denial. This notice will refer to the specific contract provision on which the denial is based; it will describe any additional material or information that may be necessary for the claim to be processed; it will explain why such material or information is necessary, and it will explain the Plan’s claim review procedures.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under this deferential standard, the plan's decision to deny [the claimant] benefits is reviewed only to determine whether it was 'downright unreasonable.' ") (quoting Donato v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 375 , 380 (7th Cir.1994)). If the decision made by the administrator "was made rationally and in good faith,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The question is whether [plaintiff] was supplied with a statement of reasons that under the circumstances of the case permitted a sufficiently clear understanding of the administrator's decision to permit effective review.”
    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.