Langman v. Laub’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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

1. “[a] defined benefit plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph if the accrued benefit to which any participant is entitled upon his separation from the service is not less than a fraction of the annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age to which he would be entitled under the plan as in effect on the date of his separation if he continued to earn annually until normal retirement age the same rate of compensation upon which his normal retirement benefit would be computed under the plan, determined as if he had attained normal retirement age on the date any such determination is made (but taking into account no more than the 10 years of service immediately preceding his separation from service). Such fraction shall be a fraction, not exceeding 1, the numerator of which is the total number of his years of participation in the plan (as of the date of his separation from the service) and the denominator of which is the total number of years he would have participated in the plan if he separated from the service at the normal retirement age.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Register v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. · 616 F. Supp. 2d 7 - Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan

2. “The primary purpose of [minimum accrual rates] is to prevent attempts to defeat the objectives of the minimum vesting provisions by providing undue “backloading,” i.e., by providing inordinately low rates of accrual in the employee’s early years of service when he is most likely to leave the firm and by concentrating the accrual of benefits in the employee’s later years of service when he is most likely to remain with the firm until retirement.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 736 F. Supp. 2d 64 - Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan · 616 F. Supp. 2d 7 - Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan

3. “is irrelevant to across-the-board increases in benefit rates made at some future time on behalf of all current employees regardless of period of service. Indeed, it would be a strange rule that would prohibit a fund from making a more than one-third increase in its across-the-board benefit rate unless the rule were retroactively applied to all former employees; yet this would be the effect of plaintiffs interpretation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension plan · 299 F. Supp. 2d 274 - Campanella v. MASON TENDERS'DIST. COUNCIL PENSION