Bauer v. Summit Bancorp’s Empirical Analysis
325 F.3d 155 · 2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 1011 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 26 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 1012 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 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. § 1052 (§ 202 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (§ 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK · Kinney v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A plan shall be treated as not meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) unless it provides that any employee who has satisfied the minimum age and service requirements specified in such paragraph, and who is otherwise entitled to participate in the plan, commences participation in the plan no later than the earlier of- (A) the first day of the first plan year beginning after the date on which such employee satisfied such requirements, or (B) the date 6 months after the date on which he satisfied such requirements, unless such employee was separated from the service before the date referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever is applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nothing in ERISA requires employers to establish employee benefits plans. Neither does it require that every employee is entitled to participate in a plan that it does decide to offer, for, as the Supreme Court, in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 , 103 S.Ct. 2890 , 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983), stated: “ERISA does not mandate that employers provide any particular benefits, and does not itself proscribe discrimination in the provision of employee benefits.” Id. at 91 , 103 S.Ct. 2890 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An action for benefits under an ERISA plan may be brought only by a participant in or beneficiary of an ERISA plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (a)(2); 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1). Under ERISA, a “participant” is defined as “any employee or former employee of an employer ... who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan ... or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive any such benefit.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (7).”
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.