Stanley Smith v. Robert Contini’s Empirical Analysis
205 F.3d 597 · 2000
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · 1993-1 v. Petruzzi's Iga Supermarkets Inc · Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp. · Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. · Newark Branch, National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People, v. Town Of Harrison, New Jersey
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we agree with the defendants and the district court that the defendants were under no obligation under ERISA to provide for reciprocal agreements and Pro-rata Pensions. Nevertheless, once having made the determination to provide for such pensions, the defendants were obliged to formulate a plan providing for vesting in accordance with ERISA section 203(a)(2)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (a)(2)(A). Thus, this case represents a situation, not unusual in the law, that an actor’s discretion in how it engages in certain conduct is circumscribed, even though it was not obliged to engage in the conduct in the first instance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[this court is] required to enforce the Plan as written unless [it] can find a provision of ERISA that contains a contrary directive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bellas v. CBS, Inc.
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.