Florence Nightingale Nursing Service, Inc. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama’s Empirical Analysis
41 F.3d 1476 · 1995
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably HCA Health Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Employers Health Insurance (2001), Saffle v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. Bargaining Unit Long Term Disability Income Plan (1996)
19 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Associated Grocers, Inc. v. Washington · Halas v. Department of Energy · Norman v. Housing Authority of Montgomery
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the degree of the opposing parties’ culpability or bad faith; (2) the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of attorneys’ fees; (3) whether an award of attorneys’ fees against the opposing parties would deter other persons acting under similar circumstances; (4) whether the parties requesting attorney’s fees sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal question regarding ERISA itself; and (5) the relative merits of the parties’ positions.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he award of an amount of prejudgment interest in an ERISA case is a matter 'committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A claims administrator's decision is arbitrary and capricious where new requirements for coverage are added to those enumerated in the plan.”
2 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.