Scholtens v. Schneider’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Fmc Corporation v. Holliday · Baxter v. Lynn · 139 Ill. App. 3d 53 - Golen v. Chamberlain Manufacturing Corp.
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.
“the plan as it directly modifies both the plan and the subrogation agreement. Respondent further asserts that this is not a case where the State action affects the plan in merely a tenuous, remote or peripheral manner but rather has an effect that is substantial, immediate and fundamental. The question presented in this case is whether the trial court's application of the Illinois common fund doctrine, in the subrogation context,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The Court should not and does not adjudicate any rights of the Trustees under the terms of either their subrogation agreement with plaintiff or the terms of their benefit plan."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the plans, thereby avoiding Federal preemption. In a footnote, the United States Supreme Court indicated that”
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.