No. 98-3350’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably 171 F. Supp. 2d 856 - West v. Aetna Life Insurance (2001), 356 F. Supp. 2d 1278 - Richards v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co. (2004)
14 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
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · De Nobel · Woo v. Deluxe Corp. · Chambers v. Family Health Plan Corp.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ERISA specifically contemplates the utilization of fiduciaries that may not be entirely neutral. ' See 29 U.S.C. § 1108 (c)(3) (providing that employers may appoint their employees to serve as plan fiduciaries, despite the employer’s status as a “party in interest”); 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 -l(g)(2) (providing that an insurance company may review and decide upon denied benefit claims after making the initial denial). Accordingly, not every allegation of impartiality alters the standard of review. A plan beneficiary is not entitled to less deferential review absent material, probative evidence demonstrating that a palpable conflict of interest existed, which caused a serious breach of the administrator’s fiduciary duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan,”
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.