Reich v. Lancaster’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.3d 1034 · 1995
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Lopresti v. Terwilliger (1997), Bridges v. City of Bossier (1996)
43 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1002 (§ 3 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. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (§ 413 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Wrenn v. McFadden · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is defined as follows: 22 a person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionarey control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets, ... or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan. 23 § 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). The term”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Michael Hamilton, Independent Fiduciary, Sciw Health & Welfare Trust Fund Southern Council of Industrial Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. James W. Carell Achiever Corporation J.W. Carell Administrators, Inc., & J.W. Carell Administrators & Consultants, Inc. Diversified Health Management, Inc. · Sciw v. W Jw & Jw““does not find facts. Neither is it free to view the evidence differently as a matter of choice.” In re Placid Oil Co., 158 B.R. 404, 412 (N.D.Tex.1993). “We are not permitted to re-weigh the evidence on appeal simply because we disagree with the choices made by the district court.” E.E.O.C. v. Clear Lake Dodge, 25 F.3d 265, 270 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Anderson [v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.], 470 U.S. [564,] 573-74, 105 S.Ct. [1504,] 1511-12, [ 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)]).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.