Watson v. Proctor’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.3d 593 · 1998
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Raymond B. Yates, MD, PC Profit Sharing Plan v. Hendon (2004), Public Citizen v. Department of Transportation (2003)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Dandridge v. Williams · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · Patterson v. Shumate · Richardson v. Belcher
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“even if the plans were created simultaneously or shared other common characteristics, they are independent plans under ERISA.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he traditional agency criteria can be applied logically only in situations involving relationships between two different persons, i.e. , those who employ persons and those who are so employed,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under ERISA despite the fact that he was the sole shareholder of his corporation and the sole participant and beneficiary of the plan at issue. Id. at 595. This court affirmed the bankruptcy court's holding that the plan was not subject to ERISA because it never provided benefits to employees and never had any participants other than Watson. Id. at 594. 7 Watson also contended that his plan was subject to ERISA because it was sufficiently related to the plan covering his nurse employees. The court was not persuaded and stated that”
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.