Shell v. Amalgamated Cotton Garment’s Empirical Analysis
43 F.3d 364 · 1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2011
4 federal appellate · 4 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 Nebraska v. Wyoming · St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Camp · Lutheran Medical Center of Omaha Nebraska v. Contractors Laborers Teamsters and Engineers Health and Welfare Plan · Cox v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc. · McIntosh v. Pacific Holding Co.
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“being “extremely unreasonable,” [Kennedy v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 31 F.3d 606, 609 (8th Cir.1994) ]; “virtually” the same as arbitrary and capricious, Lutheran Medical Center v. Contractors, Laborers, Teamsters, and Engineers Health and Welfare Plan, 25 F.3d 616 , 620 n. 2 (8th Cir.1994); and “ ‘extraordinarily imprudent,’ ” Cox v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 965 F.2d 569, 572 (8th Cir.1992), quoting G.G. Bogert and G.T. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 560 at 204 (rev.2d ed.1980).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether that interpretation is an abuse of the plan’s discretion, we consider “whether the interpretation contradicts the plan’s clear language, whether the interpretation renders any plan language internally inconsistent or meaningless, whether the interpretation is consistent with earlier interpretations, whether the interpretation is consistent with the plan’s goals, and whether the plan satisfies ERISA requirements.””
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.