335 F. Supp. 2d 875 - Federal Express Corp. v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (§ 205 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Boggs v. Boggs · Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The spouse of the participant consents in writing to such an election; 2. The election designates a beneficiary (or a form of benefit) that may not be changed without spousal consent (or the consent of the spouse expressly permits designations by the participant without any requirement of further consent by the spouse); 3. The spouse’s consent acknowledges the effect of the election; and 4. The consent is witnessed by a plan representative or notary public.”
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.