Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 465 FSUPP 341 - Marshall v. Kelly

Marshall v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
September 2017
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Donovan v. Bierwirth (1982), Iron Workers Local # 272 v. Bowen (1980)

17 federal appellate · 7 district ·

37019781980199020002010decided

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. § 1003 (§ 4 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 1108 (§ 408 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 414 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Tennessee Coal Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co · Eaves v. Penn · Marshall v. Snyder · 430 F. Supp. 1224 - Marshall v. Snyder

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(b) The prohibitions provided in section 1106 of this title shall not apply to any of the following transactions: ****** (2) Contracting or making reasonable arrangements with a party in interest for office space, or legal, accounting, or other services necessary for the establishment or operation of the plan, if no more than reasonable compensation is paid therefor. (c) Nothing in section 1106 of this title shall be construed to prohibit any fiduciary from— * * * * * . * (2) receiving any reasonable compensation for services rendered, or for reimbursement of expenses properly and actually incurred, in the performance of his duties with the plan; except that no person so serving who already receives full-time pay from an employer or an association of employers, whose employees are participants in the plan, or from an employee organization whose members are participants in such a plan shall receive compensation from such plan, except for reimbursement of expenses properly and actually incurred;”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(A) for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan; (B) with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Section 406 [ 29 U.S.C. § 1106 ] . . . (relating to prohibited transactions') shall not apply . . . until June 30, 1984, to a loan of money or other extension of credit between a plan and a party in interest under a binding contract in effect on July 1. 1974 (underscoring added) (or pursuant to renewals of such a contract), if such loan or other extension of credit remains at least as favorable to the plan as an arm’s-length transaction with an unrelated party would be, and if the execution of the contract, the making of the loan, or the extension of credit was not, at the time of such execution, making, or extension, a prohibited transaction (within the meaning of section 503(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [Title 26] or the corresponding provisions of pri- or law).” 29 U.S.C. § 1114 (c)(1).”
    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.