Davis v. Combes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[PJursuant to federal common law, an insured substantially complies with the change of beneficiary provisions of an ERISA life insurance policy when the insured: (1) evidences his or her intent to make the change and (2) attempts to effectuate the change by undertaking positive action which is for all practical purposes similar to the action required by the change of beneficiary provisions of the policy.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · 676 F. Supp. 2d 116 - Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. EINHORN EX REL. MEHRING

2. “The concept of substantial compliance is part of the body of federal common law that the courts have developed for issues on which ERISA does not speak directly.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fessenden v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. · Firestone v. Fed. Ret. Thrift Inv. Bd.

3. “The fact that a policy holder made a careless error should not conclusively determine whether her efforts at naming a beneficiary were effective for purposes of the policy and the statute. Carelessness suggests a lack of attention to detail, but it tells us very little about whether the policy holder formed the necessary intent to name a beneficiary and whether she took sufficient steps consistent with that intent to implement her decision. We are aware that there will be situations in which a failure to sign and date a beneficiary designation may cast significant doubt on whether the policy holder actually decided to go through with the change. But it is equally true that there are other cases in which the evidence will unequivocally establish that the policy holder intended to make the new beneficiary designation and took positive action to effectuate that intent. Cf. Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 , 121 S.Ct. 1801, 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (2001) (holding that failure to sign notice of appeal should not be fatal where “no genuine doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 676 F. Supp. 2d 116 - Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. EINHORN EX REL. MEHRING