Janice Leckey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he Trust does not fall within the definition of an ERISA plan. The controlling regulations expressly provide that the term ‘employee benefit plan’ shall not include any plan, fund or program, other than an apprenticeship or other training program, under which no employees are participants covered under the plan[.] 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3 (b) (emphasis added). “Ms. Dahl contends that she was an employee of the Medical Practice. Although Ms. Dahl received compensation and W-2 forms from the Medical Practice for a couple of years, she was not, as a matter of law, an ‘employee’ entitled to protection by ERISA [at that time]. The regulations established a clear rule: An individual and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees with respect to a trade or business, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which is wholly owned by the individual or by the individual and his or her spouse[.] 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3 (c) (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Dr. Dahl and Ms. Dahl were the only two employees of the Medical Practice and were married at the time. There is also no dispute that the Medical Practice was, and continues to be, wholly owned by Dr. Dahl. Although by other definitions they may have been employees, they were not ‘ERISA employees.’ In essence, they are not counted. Accordingly, under ERISA regulations, the Medical Practice had no employees, and so the Trust is not an employee benefit plan. The regulation expressly excludes them — and the Trust — from ER”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 26 F. Supp. 3d 980 - McVey ex rel. Bittersweet Distributors, Inc. v. McVey ex rel. Estate of McVey

2. “The regulation only prevents spouses who wholly own a business from being counted as employees.... Indeed, in a 1976 advisory opinion, the Department of Labor made clear that a ... plan covering only the shareholders of a company or their spouses would lie outside ERISA’s scope ‘only where the stock of the corporation is wholly owned by one shareholder and his or her spouse and the shareholder or the shareholder and his or her spouse are the only participants in-the plan.’ Department of Labor Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs, Opinion 76-67, [ 1976 WL 5082 ] 1976 ERISA Lexis 58 (May 21, 1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 86 F. Supp. 3d 293 - Perez v. Koresko