Speciale v. Seybold’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 612 · 1998
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Payton v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center (1999), Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc. v. Valerie Washington (1999)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Avco Corporation v. Aero Lodge No 735 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc. · Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the “complete preemption” doctrine has become fully accepted, confusion remains because the complete preemption doctrine “is not a preemption doctrine but rather a federal jurisdiction doctrine.” ... .... A federal defense to a claim arising under state law does not create federal jurisdiction and does not authorize removal. [Defendants] may perhaps choose to argue ... [the] conflict preemption defense [in state court] ..., but they do not have federal jurisdiction in this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the “plaintiff’ [i]s eligible to bring a claim under that section; (2) whether the plaintiffs cause of action falls within the scope of an ERISA pro vision that the plaintiff can enforce via § 502(a), and (3) whether the plaintiffs state law claim cannot be resolved without an interpretation of the contract governed by federal law. [Iinternal quotation marks and citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A civil action may be brought- (1) by a participant or beneficiary- (A) for the relief provided for in subsection (c) of this section, or (B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan ...”
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.