Shofer v. Stuart Hack Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When respondents’ nonfiduciary status is considered along with the conduct at issue and the type of damages sought, we do not believe that Congress could have intended to preempt this particular action. The conduct at issue here is simply a failure to give competent tax advice about an ERISA distribution. If Congress intended to preempt such conduct against nonfiduciaries, then arguably a tax adviser with no relationship to an ERISA plan who negligently advised a client that an ERISA distribution was nontaxable would be immune from liability. Moreover, the damages sought are simply the amounts Shofer personally expended because of the allegedly negligent failure to advise. It is hard to imagine that Congress intended to preempt an action in which all potential damages would be paid by a nonfiduciary and would not inure to a plan. Where the alleged negligence of a nonfiduciary plan administrator is as removed from the plan as here, and ‘in the absence of an explicit corresponding provision in ERISA allowing a professional malpractice cause of action, Congress did not intend to preempt a whole panoply of state law in this area.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barrett v. Hay

2. “"The docket of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City reflects that no judgment has ever been entered disposing of the third-party claim by respondents against Grabush. Nor was the circuit court asked to certify its dismissal of Shofer’s second amended complaint as a final judgment pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-602. Thus, this case could be dismissed as a premature appeal. See Estep v. Georgetown Leather Design, 320 Md. 277 , 577 A.2d 78 (1990). Nevertheless, we exercise our discretion under Maryland Rule 8-602(e)(l)(C) and hereby enter as a final judgment the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissing all of Shofer’s claims.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gress

3. “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 management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation ... or (in) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barrett v. Hay