Anderson v. Flexel, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
47 F.3d 243 · 1995
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Lb Credit Corporation v. Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver for Concordia Federal Bank for Savings (1995), Doe v. Travelers Insurance (1999)
40 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1024 (§ 104 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 Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · Public Service Commission v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · School Board of Nassau County, Florida, Et Al. v. Arline · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the degree of the offending parties’ culpability or bad faith; (2) the degree of the ability of the offending parties to satisfy personally an award of attorneys’ fees; (3) whether or not an award of attorneys’ fees against the offending parties would deter other persons acting under similar circumstances; (4) the amount of benefit conferred on members of the pension plan as a whole; and (5) the relative merits of the parties’ positions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since then we have stated that the “bottom-line question” under either approach “is essentially the same: was the losing party’s position substantially justified and taken in good faith, or was that party simply out to harass its opponent?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gallo v. Amoco Corp.“[P]ost-judgment motions cannot be used to raise arguments or legal theories that could have been and should have been brought before judgment.”
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.