Qualls v. Blue Cross Of California’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 839 · 1994
Citation profile
105 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Margolis v. Ryan (1998), Raymond Vincent Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corporation (1997)
105 federal appellate · 8 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1162 (§ 602 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne · Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. · United Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail · Stutzman v. Board of Education
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We will only find that the district court abused its discretion if the movant diligently pursued its previous discovery opportunities, and if the movant can show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) No contributions are made by an employer or employee organization; (2) Participation in the program is completely voluntary for employees or members; (3) The sole functions of the employer of employee organization with respect to the program are, without endorsing the program, to permit the insurer to publicize the program to employees or members, to collect premiums through payroll deductions or dues checkoffs and to remit them to the insurer; and (4) The employer or employee organization receives no consideration in the form of cash or otherwise in connection with the program, other than reasonable compensation, excluding any profit, for administrative services actually rendered in connection with payroll deductions or due checkoffs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ERISA defines an `employee benefit plan' to include, among others, `any plan, fund, or program . . . established or maintained by an employer . . . for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance . . . medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits . . . .'”
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.