Denny's Incorporated v. Cake Lujan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 3 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) A civil action may be brought — ... (3) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this sub-chapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 899 F. Supp. 2d 676 - Sherfel v. Gassman · 124 F. Supp. 3d 679 - Retirement Committee, Plan Administrator of Executive Retirement Plan of Thermal Ceramics Latin America v. Magasrevy

2. “Section 1132(a)(3)(B) thus permits an ERISA fiduciary to bring an action to “enforce any provisions of this subchap-ter.” Indisputably, “this subchapter” refers to subchapter I of Chapter 18 of the United States Code, which codified Title I of ERISA and includes 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 1191. “[Tjhis subchapter” thus clearly contains ERISA’s preemption provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1144 . The plain language of § 1132(a)(3)(B) therefore appears to permit an ERISA fiduciary to bring an action to “enforce” § 1144 a “provision of this subchapter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dickten Masch Plastics, LLC v. Williams

3. “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 650 F. App'x 344 - Monster Beverage Corporation v. Dennis Herrera