Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.3d 332 · 1999
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Ellis v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston (2004), Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi (2000)
54 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers 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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 502, by providing a civil enforcement cause of action, completely preempts any state cause of action seeking the same relief.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robert Roark Robert Roark, on Behalf of the Estate of Gwen Roark v. Humana, Inc. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., Doing Business as Humana Health Plan of Texas (Dallas), Doing Business as Humana Health Plan of Texas (San Antonio), Doing Business as Humana Health Plan of Texas (Corpus Christi) Humana Hmo Texas, Inc., Ruby R. Calad, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Walter Patrick Thorn, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee v. Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Incorporated, Doing Business as Healthsource, Doing Business as Cigna Corporation, Aetna U.S. Healthcare Aetna U.S. Healthcare of North Texas, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. Juan Davila v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of North Texas, Inc. · Ford v. Freemen“The difference between preemption and complete preemption is important. "When the doctrine of complete preemption does not apply, but the plaintiffs state claim is arguably preempted under § 514(a), the district court, being without removal jurisdiction, cannot resolve the dispute regarding preemption. It 'lacks power to do anything other than ■ remand to the state court where the preemption issue can be addressed and resolved.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rather than transmogrifying a state cause of action into a federal one — as occurs with complete preemption — conflict preemption serves as a defense to a state action.”
3 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.