← 53 F.3d 172 - 23910p Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund v. Neurobehavioral Associates Pa

23910p Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund v. Neurobehavioral Associates Pa’s Empirical Analysis

53 F.3d 172 · 1995

Citation profile

cited by 33 later decisions

June 2018

most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. (1996), Sarah E. Frey, Kevin Enright v. Environmental Protection Agency (2001)

6 federal appellate · 3 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. § 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. § 1103 (§ 403 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates · Colonial Village, Inc. v. Spann · Delaware v. New York

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

“A civil action may be brought ... by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Chicago District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund v. Angulo · 906 F. Supp. 2d 791 - Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Lake County Board of Commissioners Employee Health Benefit Plan
“ERISA preemption is, therefore, not limited to displacement of state laws affecting employee benefit plans, but rather extends to any state cause of action that has a '[c]onnection or reference to' an ERISA plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Trustmark Life Insurance Company Benefit Trust Life Insurance Company v. the University of Chicago Hospitals · Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.
“between a fiduciary [the fund plan] and a beneficiary [a medical care provider]... is of primary concern under ERISA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 329 F. Supp. 3d 647 - Smith v. Iron Workers Dist. Council of S. Ohio & Vicinity Pension Trust · Trustmark Life Insurance Company Benefit Trust Life Insurance Company v. the University of Chicago Hospitals

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.