Frommert v. Conkright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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

1. “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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frommert v. Conkright · 639 F. Supp. 2d 305 - Frommert v. Conkright

2. “The import of paragraph 5 is that the salary continuance given to the employee did not take the place of, but was in addition to, any benefits to which the employee was already entitled by law or Xerox policy. This suggests that the employee was not waiving his right to such benefits. If he were, it would make little sense to describe his salary continuance as being “in addition to” such benefits. Furthermore, while it might be argued that there is a distinction between a right to pension benefits in general and a “claim” seeking to have those benefits calculated according to a particular formula, that is a distinction without a difference here, because the Second Circuit has now held that, at least with respect to employees rehired before 1998, Xerox’s “reduction of justified expectations of benefits [by using the phantom account] took the form of a retroactive cutback in violation of’ ERISA. In other words, those employees were “entitled by law” not simply to receive some pension benefits, but to have their benefits calculated without any reduction attributable to a “phantom” account.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frommert v. Conkright

3. “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan....” . Section 1132(a)(3) permits an action”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kunsman v. Conkright