Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
429 federal appellate · 384 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,066 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn (2008), LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. (2008)
429 federal appellate · 384 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRoark v. Humana, Inc. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 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. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (§ 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor
Cited together with Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
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 2,066 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A civil action may be brought — (1) by a participant or beneficiary — ... (B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.”
161 later decisions quote this exact passage“and who did not attempt to remedy any violation of a legal duty independent of ERISA. Id. at 2492-93, 2498. In other words, all the parties in that case were part of the”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ERISA § 514(b)(2)(A) must be interpreted in light of the congressional intent to create an exclusive federal remedy in ERISA § 502(a). Under ordinary principles of conflict pre-emption, then, even a state law that can arguably be characterized as ‘regulating insurance’ will be pre-empted if it provides a separate vehicle to assert a claim for benefits outside of, or in addition to, ERISA’s remedial scheme.”
8 later decisions 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.