Frommert v. Conkright’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.3d 254 · 2006
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 22 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably 131 S. Ct. 1866 - CIGNA Corp. v. Amara (2011), Conkright v. Frommert (2010)
17 federal appellate · 22 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. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1022 (§ 102 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (§ 204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1082 (§ 302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 401 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (§ 413 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 · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates · Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. Knudson · Bowen v. Massachusetts
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On remand, the remedy crafted by the district court for those employees rehired prior to 1998 should utilize an appropriate pre-amendment calculation to determine their benefits. We recognize the difficulty that this task poses because of the ambiguous manner in which the pre-amendment terms of the Plan described how prior distributions were to be treated. As guidance for the district court, we suggest that it may wish to employ equitable principles when determining the appropriate calculation and fashioning the appropriate remedy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adequate relief is available under [§ 502(a)(1)(B) ],”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] single-employer plan may not be amended so as to provide for a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual, unless, after adoption of the plan amendment and not less than 15 days before the effective date of the plan amendment, the plan administrator provides a written notice, setting forth the plan amendment and its effective date.”
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.