Keen v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

cited by 11 later decisions

cited 3 times by the Supreme Court

states following

July 2014

most recently cited

6 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco))

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (§ 205 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 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 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne · MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc.

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

“If a decree of divorce or annulment is rendered after a spouse, acting in the capacity of a participant, annuitant, or account holder, has designated the other spouse as a beneficiary under an individual retirement account ... in force- at the time of rendition, the designating provision in the plan in favor of the other former spouse is not effective unless: (1)the decree designates the other former spouse as the beneficiary; (2) the designating former spouse redesig-nates the other former spouse as the beneficiary after rendition of the decree; or (3) the other former spouse is designated to receive the proceeds or benefits in trust for, on behalf of, or for the benefit of a child or dependent of either former spouse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. Billye Olmstead AKA Billye Ryersen v. Roy Michael Napoli, as Independent of the Estate of Anthony John Carona AKA Anthony Carona
“all sums, whether matured or unma-tured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any ... retirement plan ... or other benefit program existing by reason of [Carona’s] past, present, or future employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Billye Olmstead AKA Billye Ryersen v. Roy Michael Napoli, as Independent of the Estate of Anthony John Carona AKA Anthony Carona
“We do not believe that Egelhoff precludes the application of federal common law to this dispute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Finch

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.