Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 F.3d 794 - Mattei v. Mattei

Mattei v. Mattei’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Smith v. Ameritech (1997), White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. (2004)

25 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

190199720002010decided

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 Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon · National Labor Relations Board v. Transportation Management Corp. · Boggs v. Boggs · Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. · Gavalik v. Continental Can Co.

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

  1. “[I]t is unlawful for any person to discharge, fire, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled the provisions of an employee benefit plan [¶]... ] or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled to under the plan.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f an employer, annoyed over an employee's insistence on receiving certain ERISA benefits, transferred her (at the same salary) to some wretched backwater, that would clearly constitute a valid retaliation claim.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “that the [ 510] prohibitions were aimed primarily at preventing unscrupulous employers from discharging or harassing their employees in order to keep them from obtaining vested pension rights[,]”
    2 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.