Hunger’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2017
1 federal appellate ·
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 Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Burlington Northern Railroad v. Oklahoma Tax Commission · Gillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp. · Erickson Partnership United States Farmers Home Administration v. Erickson Partnership
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan.... (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan amendment which has the effect of— (A) eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy (as defined in regulations), or (B) eliminating an option form of benefit, with respect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment shall be treated as reducing accrued benefits. In the case of a retirement-type subsidy, the preceding sentence shall apply only with respect to a participant who satisfies (either before or after the amendment) the preamendment conditions for the subsidy. ***”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress enacted ERISA to ensure that an employee would not lose fully vested, accrued benefits in the event the employer terminated or amended its pension plan”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under section 204(g), a plan sponsor may not decrease a benefit subsidy through a plan amendment when the participant has satisfied the preamendment requirements for the subsidy at the time of the amendment or would otherwise be able to satisfy such requirements follomng the amendment. Thus, section 204(g) extends to all participants the right to “grow into” a benefit subsidy by satisfying the plan’s preamendment eligibility requirements following the amendment to the plan.”
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.