Jones v. UOP’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.3d 141 · 1994
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United (1997), Berger v. Xerox Corporation Retirement Income Guarantee Plan (2003)
24 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 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. § 1024 (§ 104 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (§ 204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (§ 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Lee v. Burkhart · Coleman v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company · Lynn E. Anweiler v. American Electric Power Service Corporation and Aetna Life Insurance Company · VanderKlok v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance · Fisher v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We can imagine a case in which the plan sponsor would be estopped to deny that it was the administrator.... If UOP’s legal department had told Jones’s law yer to forget about the Committee and direct all his document requests to the legal department, and if in reliance on this advice the lawyer had forgone an opportunity to obtain the documents from the plan administrator and Jones had suffered a harm as a result, the elements of equitable estoppel would be present. Thomason v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 9 F.3d 645 , 648 (7th Cir.1993). We have no reason to doubt the applicability of that venerable doctrine, as a matter of federal common law, to suits for the statutory penalty....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to treat vesting and accrual of benefits differently with respect to breaks in service”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(i) the person specifically so designated by the terms of the instrument under which the plan is operated; (ii) if an administrator is not so designated, the plan sponsor; or (iii) in the case of a plan for which an administrator is not designated and a plan sponsor cannot be identified, such other person as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.