Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 F.3d 1178 - Associated General Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Associated General Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Empirical Analysis

159 F.3d 1178 · 1998

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Zimmerman v. Oregon Department of Justice (1999), Odom v. Microsoft Corp. (2007)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

400199820002010decided

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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville · California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A. · American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens · Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Courts have had little difficulty finding that proprietary state action does not 'have the effect of law' under ERISA and thus does not fall within the terms of express preemption.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “applies just as strongly here, for ERISA itself carefully distinguishes between state action in general and state action which has the effect of law”
    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.