Larson v. Northrop Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 1164 · 1994
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Firestone v. K Firestone, Montrose Medical Group Participating Savings Plan v. Bulger (2001)
30 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78R (§ 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 26 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 1012 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 291 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (§ 413 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Helvering v. Gowran · United States v. Alaska
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'show (1) that defendants engaged in a course of conduct designed to conceal evidence of their alleged wrong-doing and that (2) [the plaintiffs] were not on actual or constructive notice of that evidence, despite (3) their exercise of diligence.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We recognize that isolated situations can be imagined where it could seem harsh to penalize a beneficiary for not suing within six years: for example, ... the beneficiary might not have discovered the breach within the six years. However, the special provision Congress made elsewhere in § 1113 for fraud or concealment ... provides amelioration in the worst cases while, at the same time, indicating that Congress meant to toll the statute only in instances of fraud or concealment_ That the limitations period in § 1113(l)(a) is six years ... suggests a judgment by Congress that when six years has passed after a breach or violation, and no fraud or concealment occurs, the value of repose will trump other interests, such as a plaintiffs right to seek a remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No action may be commenced under this subchapter with respect to a fiduciary’s breach of any responsibility, duty, or obligation under this part or with respect to a violation, after the earlier of: (1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation, or (B) in the case of an omission the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or (2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation; except that in the case of fraud or concealment such action may be commenced not later than six years after the date of discovery of such breach or violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harris v. Koenig
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.