Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
192 F.3d 162 · 1999
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc. (2005), Platten
6 federal appellate · 19 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne · District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade · Department of Revenue of Montana v. Ranch · Gracey v. Reigle
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.
“[The plan] did not constitute an ERISA “plan.” True, the VTP authorized certain exclusions and deferrals, as well as appeals by disappointed employees, making it somewhat less mechanical and unthinking than the Maine statutory scheme in Fort Halifax and the onetime payment schemes in Belanger . Yet, as the district court found, the VTP did not call for the sort of ongoing, individualized determinations necessitated by the “tin parachute” statute addressed in Simas. ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'the nature and extent of an employer's benefit obligations.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“at a time when several proposals urging such changes [in benefits were] on the table but, as yet, senior management with the authority to implement a change ha[d] not yet chosen a specific plan for implementation.... In such a case, the existence of the proposals and the attendant discussion might reasonably be expected to influence a decision with respect to retirement.”
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.