Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
171 F.3d 130 · 1999
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Francis Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (2001), Bouboulis v. Transport Workers Union (2006)
19 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 Weyant v. Okst · Sprague v. General Motors Corp. · Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp. · Heidgerd v. Olin Corp. · Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'point to written language capable of reasonably being interpreted as creating a promise'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The burden Multifoods imposes is ultimately one of identification: a single sentence can suffice to raise a question that requires resolution by a trier of fact. Referring to several statements that become ambiguous only after extensive linguistic contortion, however — here through fifteen pages of briefing and treatise citation — fails to satisfy this burden. We are unpersuaded by [plaintiffs’] attempt to manufacture ambiguity by statements such as “the GIAs state that insurance ‘will be provided for employees receiving or becoming entitled to receive pension payments’ ” and “the 1965 GIA expressly provides for the ‘termination’ of retiree insurance upon a retiree’s ‘death or attaining the age at which he becomes or could become eligible for Medicare.’” These statements cannot reasonably be read as binding [the employer] to vest the benefits at issue, and Multifoods does not ask us to go further.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`specific written language that is reasonably susceptible to interpretation as a promise'”
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.