Bannistor v. Ullman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “A person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting the management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any monies or other property of such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc. · Tittle v. Enron Corp.

2. “is liberally construed in keeping with the remedial purpose of ERISA. Am. Fed. of Unions Local 102 Health & Welfare Fund v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 841 F.2d 658 , 662 (5th Cir.1988).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Musmeci v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. · Ford v. Freemen

3. “(1) [A] fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and- (A) for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan; (B) with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; (C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so; and (D) in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schweitzer v. Inv. Comm. of the Phillips 66 Sav. Plan · 309 F. Supp. 2d 861 - In Re Dynegy, Inc. ERISA Litigation