Huppeler v. Oscar Mayer Foods Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
32 F.3d 245 · 1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 1012 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1202 (§ 3002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc. · Dameron
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]onforfeitable rights are not considered to be forfeitable by reason of the fact that they may be reduced to take into account benefits which are provided under the Social Security Act or under any other Federal or State law and which are taken into account in determining plan benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his linguistic twist only goes so far--any contractual provision that called for the forfeiture of benefits could be described as defining the content of the nonforfeitable benefits.”
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.