Langbecker v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.3d 299 · 2007
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Hecker v. Deere & Co. (2009), Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc. (2007)
20 federal appellate · 13 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 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 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. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Auer v. Robbins · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Christensen v. Harris County
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o person who is otherwise a fiduciary shall be liable under this part for any loss, or by reason of any breach, which results from such participant’s or beneficiary’s exercise of control.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the act of limiting or designating investment options which are intended to constitute all or part of the investment universe of an ERISA 404(c) plan is a fiduciary function which, whether achieved through fiduciary designation or express plan language, is not a direct or necessary result of any participant direction of such plan. Thus, for example, in the case of look-through investment vehicles, the plan fiduciary has a fiduciary obligation to prudently select such vehicles, as well as a residual fiduciary obligation to periodically evaluate the performance of such vehicles to determine, based on that evaluation, whether the vehicles should continue to be available as participant investment options. Similar fiduciary obligations would exist in the case of an investment universe consisting of investment alternatives which are not look-through investment vehicles but which are specifically designated by plan fiduciaries.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A plan fiduciary may have violated the duties of selection and monitoring of a plan investment, but § 404(c) recognizes that participants are not hapless victims of every error. Participants have access to information about the Plan’s investments, pursuant to DOL regulations, and they are furnished with risk-diversified investment options.”
2 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.