Board of Trustees of the Construction Laborers' Pension Trust for Southern California v. M.M. Sundt Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.3d 1419 · 1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2019
3 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1399 (§ 4219 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1401 (§ 4221 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1451 (§ 4301 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on McKart v. United States · Iam National Pension Fund Benefit Plan v. Stockton Tri Industries · Flying Tiger Line v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund · Iam National Pension Fund Plan Benefits v. Clinton Engines Corporation Iam National Pension Fund Benefit Plan a · Teamsters Pension Trust Fund-Board of Trustees of the Western Conference v. Allyn Transportation Co., Board of Trustees of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff/counterdefendants/appellees v. Landy Corporation, and Landy Leasing, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Board of Trustees of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff/counterdefendants/appellees v. Landy Corporation, and Energy Carriers, Inc., Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant. Board of Trustees of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff/counterdefendants/appellees v. Landy Corporation, Defendant/counterclaimant/appellant, and Energy Carriers and Landy Leasing, 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xceptions to exhaustion requirements are usually limited, and apply only in extraordinary circumstances, such as, when the arbitral process would be futile or would cause the plaintiff irreparable injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“limited” and apply only in extraordinary circumstances); ILGWU Nat. Retirement Fund v. Levy Bros. Frocks, Inc., 846 F.2d 879, 886 (2nd Cir.1988) (exceptions to arbitrate first requirement “rare”); Flying Tiger Line v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia, 830 F.2d 1241, 1252 (3rd Cir.1987) (exceptions to arbitration”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under ERISA, disputes which arise under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381 - 99 are to be resolved through arbitration.”
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.