52 Ohio App. 2d 123 - Erion v. Timken Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “... under the facts of this case, there was a fiduciary relationship established between the Timken Company and the employees in regard to the consultations it had through its insurance department with the prospective retirees. Although we would not hold the Timken Company to the duty of explaining every conceivable legal ramification of the pension plan to its employees, certainly the more obvious and pertinent points should have been brought to the attention of the employees without the requirement of a specific question on the subject by the employee. We hold that defendant Timken Company should have informed that [sic] Mr. Erion that his retirement before August 1, 1969, would deny his wife the survivors' benefits under the new plan, which would otherwise have been available to her had retirement been delayed until after August 1, 1969. Not having carried out this responsibility to one of its employees in this regard, under the facts of this case, would constitute negligence on the part of the employer Timkin Company. [ 368 N.E. 2d at 317 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 N.J. Super. 520 - Berry v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.