Shaver’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2024
3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc. · Lee v. City of Los Angeles · Doe v. United States · Ronald Zimmerman · James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
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.
“other instruments” refers to "legal documents that describe the terms of the plan, its financial status, and other documents that restrict or govern the plan’s operation” and that itemized lists of plan expenditures need not be disclosed because they "relate only to the manner in which the plan is operated”). 4 . The court concluded, however, that: (1) appraisal and valuation reports of company stock which "simply derive the value of [the company's] stock”; (2) an IRS determination letter showing that the Plan was tax-qualified; (3) minutes of trustee meetings; (4) the costs-haring policy; and (5) the trustee expense policy did not fall within the catch-all clause because the requests were either too broad or vague, the documents did not exist, or the plan was not set up or managed under those documents. Id. at 653-56. 5 .As further support for this construction, the court noted that the enumerated documents listed in Section 104(b)(4) were all "formal documents,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Requiring a showing of loss in such a case would be to say that the fiduciaries are free to ignore their duties so long as they do no tangible harm, and that the beneficiaries are powerless to rein in the fiduciaries’ imprudent behavior until some actual damage has been done. This result is not supported by the language of ERISA, the common law, or common sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, on a 12(b)(6) motion, the District Court should consider only the pleadings.”). Hatter’s contention that the Court must consider his verified opposition as”
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.