45 F. Supp. 2d 316 - Gray v. Briggs’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2019
2 federal appellate ·
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. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here is no `good faith' exception to ERISA's fiduciary provisions. [Section 406] sets forth certain transactions that are prohibited per se. "); Gray v. Briggs, 45 F.Supp.2d 316, 326 (S.D.N.Y.1999) ("The transactions covered by Section 406(a)(1) `are per se violations of ERISA regardless of the motivation which initiated the transaction, the prudence of the transaction, or the absence of any harm arising from the transaction.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“protects beneficiaries by prohibiting transactions tainted by a conflict of interest and thus highly susceptible to self-dealing. It gives notice to fiduciaries that they must either avoid the transactions described in Section 406(b) or cease serving in their capacity as fiduciaries, no matter how sincerely they may believe that such transactions will benefit the plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the nonfiduciary, like the fiduciary, must have known or should have known at least what actually occurred, if not [also] that it was prohibited.”
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.