Luna Aj v. B’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Faber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (2011), Board of Trustees ex rel. Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Bucci (2007)
20 federal appellate · 8 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 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Benefit plan assets to be held in trust; authority of trustees. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, all assets of an employee benefit plan shall be held in trust by one or more trustees.... (b) Exceptions 30 The requirements of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply— (1) to any assets of a plan which consist of insurance contracts or policies issued by an insurance company qualified to do business in a State; (2) to any assets of such an insurance company or any assets of a plan which are held by such an insurance company; General rule.... [T]he assets of the plan include amounts (other than union dues) that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer, or amounts that a participant has withheld from his wages by an employer, for contribution or repayment of a participant loan to the plan, as of the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Our holding that employers who fail to pay contractually-owed contributions to a plan are not, by virtue of that fact alone, fiduciaries, must be distinguished from the situation where an employer has control over funds that were withheld from employees’ pay checks. Where the issue is not employer contributions (as here), but rather employee contributions held by the employer, courts will recognize that the employer meets ERISA’s statutory definition of a fiduciary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a future interest in the collection of the contractually-owed contributions” that is akin to a presently-existing”
3 later decisions 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.