Pamela Danca Joseph Danca Jr Katelyn Danca and Lisa Danca v. Private Health Care Systems Inc and Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co’s Empirical Analysis
185 F.3d 1 · 1999
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 119 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Pappas v. Asbel (2001), Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance (2009)
9 federal appellate · 119 district · 3 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 · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a claim, though couched in the language of state law, implicates an area of federal law for which Congress intended a particularly powerful preemptive sweep.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“). C. The Scope of Section 502(a) Section 502(a) provides in relevant part: A civil action may be brought ... (3) by a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan .... 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3). This language authorizes (1) a”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ERISA] brooks no interference; it contains an express preemption clause providing that it shall "supersede any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any [covered] employee benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a) (ERISA § 514). Thus, when state-law claims "relate to" ERISA plans, those claims are transmuted into ERISA claims. In that situation, "any civil complaint raising [such] a state law claim ... is of necessity so federal in character that it arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and permits removal to federal court".”
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.