Hoult v. Hoult’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. “ERISA is a comprehensive statute intended in significant part to ensure pension benefits will actually be received upon retirement by plan participants and beneficiaries.... To that end, ERISA imposes “minimum standards” on private plan managers and employers.... The anti-alienation provision of ERISA states, as a required standard for the form and payment of benefits, “[e]aeh pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.”... The provision focuses on benefits, ..., but is silent on whether the term is meant to include benefits in the nature of distributed funds no longer within the fund and held by the plan participant or beneficiary. Legislative history of [ 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1) ] has been described as sparse and inconclusive.... A House Report explains the anti-alienation provision was designed “[t]o further ensure that the employee’s accured [sic] bene fits are actually available for retirement purposes.” ... This history indicates a plan is obligated to protect benefits from alienation as least up to the point of payment so that benefits will be available for retirement purposes.... “[B]enefits” are protected by the anti-alienation provision of [ 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1) ] only so long as they are within the fiduciary responsibility of private plan managers. Following distribution of benefits to the plan participant or beneficiary, a creditor no long has a right against the plan.... ERISA [§ 1056(d)(1) ] protects ERIS”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shah v. Baloch · Corzin v. Larson (In Re Larson)

2. “[a]ny direct or indirect arrangement . . . whereby a party acquires from a participant . . . a right or interest enforceable against the plan in, or to, all or any part of a plan benefit payment which is, or may become, payable to the participant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shah v. Baloch

3. “the anti-alienation provision does not apply where, as here, the funds have already been disbursed to the plan beneficiary”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cox