Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 541 F.3d 59 - Herman v. Meiselman

Herman v. Meiselman’s Empirical Analysis

541 F.3d 59 · 2008

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1110 (§ 410 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · United States v. Zannino · Taylor v. Sturgell · Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · Arizona v. California

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

  1. “both Massachusetts law and federal common law apply the same analytical factors in deciding claim preclusion questions.”
    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.