Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 F.3d 66 - Ida Daniels Widow of Charles Daniels Deceased v. Thomas & Betts Corporation

Ida Daniels Widow of Charles Daniels Deceased v. Thomas & Betts Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

263 F.3d 66 · 2001

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
January 2022
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales (2007), Graden v. Conexant Systems Inc. (2007)

22 federal appellate · 9 district ·

450200120102020decided

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

Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Bixler v. Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund · Moothart v. Bell · Bruch v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

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

  1. “[I]n order to make out a breach of fiduciary duty claim ..., a plaintiff must establish each of the following elements: (1) the defendant's status as an ERISA fiduciary acting as a fiduciary; (2) a misrepresentation on the part of the defendant; (3) the materiality of that misrepresentation; and (4) detrimental reliance by the plaintiff on the misrepresentation.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An employee may recover for a breach of fiduciary duty if he or she proves that an employer, acting as a fiduciary, made a material misrepresentation that would confuse a reasonable beneficiary about his or her benefits, and the beneficiary acted thereupon to his or her detriment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the objective of [the ERISA disclosure requirements] would be ill served ... by permitting administrators to refuse to respond with no indication that authori[zation from the participant] is even an issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.