Baker v. Kingsley’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1113 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1022 (§ 102 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Livadas v. Bradshaw · Thompson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation · Coleman v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company · Pohl v. National Benefits Consultants, Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors of the Company to assist in the investment of the assets of this Plan. Such persons may be the Company's Vice President and Treasurer, Vice-President of Human Resources and the Director of Employee Benefits.... The Management Committee shall have full power and authority to invest and reinvest the assets of the Plan. 56 Relying on this language, the district court concluded that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baker v. Kingsley“[a]lthough section 11.6 suggests that defendants may properly be characterized as fiduciaries with respect to their appointment responsibilities regarding the Management Committee, nothing in the OMC Health Plan suggests that defendants were fiduciaries with respect to the investment of the plan's assets or the plan's funding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baker v. Kingsley“the notice, or dearth thereof, afforded participants of the plan's termination was not a matter of the exercise of discretionary authority on the part of the defendants, and cannot be characterized as a breach of fiduciary duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baker v. Kingsley
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.