New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Express Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.3d 640 · 2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Retirement Plan of the Unite Here National Retirement Fund v. Kombassan Holding A.S. (2010), 532 F. Supp. 2d 595 - Morisseau v. DLA PIPER (2008)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
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 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co. · IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann · Tenenbaum v. Williams · Paddington Partners v. Bouchard
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“file a response to the [movant’s] Statement of Material Facts. The non-movant’s response shall mirror the movant’s Statement of Material Facts by admitting and/or denying each of the movant’s assertions in matching numbered paragraphs. Each denial shall set forth a specific citation to the record where the factual issue arises. The non-movant's response may also set forth any additional material facts that the nonmovant contends are in dispute in separately numbered paragraphs. Any facts set forth in the Statement of Material Facts shall be deemed admitted unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] number of courts have drawn a distinction between disputes over (1) whether the defendant was ever an employer obligated under the MPPAA to make payments to the plaintiff pension fund, and (2) whether the defendant ceased to have that obligation before the payments in question became due. Courts addressing this distinction have uniformly held that the former question is for the court, while the latter is for the arbitrator.”) (citing cases); Doherty v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Phila. and Vicinity, 16 F.3d 1386, 1390-91 (3d Cir.1994) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“essential tools for district courts, permitting them to efficiently decide summary judgment motions by relieving them of the onerous task of hunt{[ing] through voluminous records without guidance from the parties.”
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.