Johnson v. Botica’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 4 district · 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The courts have consistently recognized that Congress did not intend to burden the courts with claims as to whether a pension benefit was correctly or incorrectly denied, but the vast majority of courts have also held that jurisdiction at least extends to deciding whether a pension plan is arbitrary, capricious, or in some way contrary to the sole and exclusive benefit of employees. E. g., Lugo v. Emp. Retire. Fund of Illumination Prod. Inc., 529 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. filed, 44 U.S.L.W. 3727 (1976); Bowers v. Moreno, 520 F.2d 843 (1st Cir. 1975); Alvares v. Erickson, 514 F.2d 156 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 874 , 96 S.Ct. 143 , 46 L.Ed.2d 106 . “Concededly, there are some analytic difficulties in the use of the structural deficiency standard as a measure of federal jurisdiction. We need not resolve the structural deficiency versus fiduciary administration dichotomy problem, if it is a problem in defining a sound basis for jurisdiction. See Alvares, supra at 166 n. 5. In the present case, we conclude that the express allegations in the complaint provided a sufficient predicate for the district court’s acceptance of § 302 jurisdiction. Cf. Lugo, supra at 255-56 . Accordingly, we need not consider the plaintiff’s alternative argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was a proper jurisdictional basis for the suit.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 433 F. Supp. 1040 - Knauss v. Gorman · Knauss v. Gorman

2. “pension plan is arbitrary, capricious, or in some way contrary to the exclusive benefit of employees.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reiherzer v. Shannon · Stinson v. Ironworkers District Council of Southern Ohio & Vicinity Benefit Trust

3. “The section was meant to protect employees from the risk that funds contributed by their employers for the benefit of the employees and their families might be diverted to other union purposes or even to the private benefit of faithless union leaders. Proponents of this section were concerned that pension funds administered entirely by the union leadership might serve as “war chests” to support union programs or political factions, or might become vehicles through which “racketeers” accepted bribes or extorted money from employers. Our interpretation of the purpose of the “sole and exclusive benefit” requirement is reinforced by the other requirements of § 302(c)(5). Section 302(c)(5) is an exception in a criminal statute that broadly prohibits employers from making direct or indirect payments to unions or union officials. Each of the specific conditions that must be satisfied to exempt employer contributions to pension funds from the criminal sanction is consistent with the nondiversion purpose. The fund must be established “for the sole and exclusive benefit” of employees and their families and dependents; contributions must be held in trust for that purpose and must be used exclusively for health, retirement, death, disability, or unemployment benefits; the basis for paying benefits must be specified in a written agreement; and the fund must be jointly administered by representatives of management and labor. All the conditions in the section fortify the basic requirement t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 551 F. Supp. 1330 - Dudo v. Schaffer