Evans v. Akers’s Empirical Analysis
534 F.3d 65 · 2008
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer (2014), Harris v. Amgen, Inc. (2009)
9 federal appellate · 8 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1021 (§ 101 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. Knudson · Bowen v. Massachusetts
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Losses to a plan from breaches of the duty of prudence may be ascertained, with the help of expert analysis, by comparing the performance of the imprudent investments with the performance of a prudently invested portfolio.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“despite the company's solid potential to emerge from bankruptcy with substantial value for shareholders”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n individual account plans, all of the plan’s money is allocable to plan participants. 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (34). Using a [§ 502(a)(1)(B)] suit to force the plan to use money already allocated to others’ accounts to make good on [plaintiff's] loss would present a host of difficulties with which few sensible plaintiffs would want to contend. Indeed, it may be that ERISA’s fiduciary obligations prevent plans from paying judgments out of funds allocable to other participants, in which case the plan, though liable, would be judgment proof.”
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.