Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 F.3d 985 - Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance

Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

170 F.3d 985 · 1999

Citation profile

162
cited by 162 later decisions
6
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 57 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co. (2002), David v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2003)

38 federal appellate · 57 district · 8 state decisions

9701999200020102020decided

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 Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon · New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance · California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A.

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

  1. “(1) the prejudice or surprise to the party against whom the testimony is offered; (2) the ability of the party to cure the prejudice; (3) the extent to which introducing such testimony would disrupt the trial; and (4) the moving party's bad faith or willfulness.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(1) A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed. In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court, on motion and after affording an opportunity to be heard, may impose other appropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, these sanctions may include any of the actions authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and may include informing the jury of the failure to make the disclosure.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(1) laws regulating the type of benefits or terms of ERISA plans; (2) laws creating reporting, disclosure, funding or vesting requirements for such plans; (3) laws providing rules for calculating the amount of benefits to be paid under such plans; and (4) law and common-law rules providing remedies for misconduct growing out of the administration of such plans.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.