Wilson v. Zoellner’s Empirical Analysis
114 F.3d 713 · 1997
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance (1999), Constantine Hampers v. Wr Grace & Co Inc (2000)
28 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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 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 Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance · California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A. · CMC Heartland Partners v. Union Pacific Railroad · John Morrell Company v. Local Union 304a of United Food and Commercial Workers
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] whether the state law negates an ERISA plan provision, [2] whether the state law affects relations between primary ERISA entities, [3] whether the state law impacts the structure of ERISA plans, [4] whether the state law impacts the administration of ERISA plans, [5] whether the state law has an economic impact on ERISA plans, [6] whether preemption of the state law is consistent with other ERISA provisions, and [7] whether the state law is an exercise of traditional state power.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[e]xcept as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subchapter shall supercede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a) of this title and not exempt under section 1003(b).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If Prudential incurs any liability as a result of this suit, it will do so only as the employer of a tortfeasor, and not as a plan fiduciary.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.