Bussian v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (§ 4 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. § 1108 (§ 408 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Garcia v. Ingram · Donovan v. Cunningham · DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States · Local Union United Mine Workers of America v. Powhatan Fuel Inc · Adams v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plaintiffs could show imprudence only if [RJR] knew of the problems [of Executive Life] and what eventually would happen and then, without additional investigation or consideration, blindly charged ahead.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough the statute lists loyalty separately from prudence, they certainly overlap; satisfying the prudence requirement may fulfill the duty of loyalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nabisco's use of the consultant and rating agencies [in selecting an Executive Life annuity] does not demonstrate imprudence.”
1 later decision 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.