Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 324 F.3d 685 - Fink v. Dakotacare

Fink v. Dakotacare’s Empirical Analysis

324 F.3d 685 · 2003

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
July 2016
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 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. § 1161 (§ 601 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1162 (§ 602 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1163 (§ 603 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Unum Life Insurance Company of America, v. John E. Ward · Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

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

  1. “An ERISA fiduciary “shall discharge [its] duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries ... for the exclusive purpose of ... providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries,” 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1).... ERISA beneficiaries may obtain appropriate equitable relief to redress a fiduciary’s breach of these duties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 316 F. Supp. 2d 854 - Workforce Development, Inc. v. Corporate Benefit Services of America, Inc.
  2. “the distinction between a substantive state insurance law, which if saved will provide `a relevant rule of decision' in an ERISA civil enforcement action, and a state judicial remedy, which is conflict-preempted under Pilot Life even if it was created or authorized by a state insurance statute”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Singh v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.

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.