Ackerman II v. Warnaco Inc’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.3d 117 · 1995
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Jordan v. Federal Express Corp. (1997), Watson v. Deaconess Waltham Hospital (2002)
14 federal appellate · 10 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 1022 (§ 102 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1024 (§ 104 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (§ 402 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. § 1341 (§ 4041 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen · City of El Centro v. United States · Griffin v. United States · Toliver v. County of Sullivan
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While we do not rule out the possibility that administrative error accounted for [the employer’s] omissions, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could infer from these facts and from the plaintiffs’ evidence regarding the employment climate at the Altoona plant that Warnaco actively concealed the change to its severance policy in order to prevent employees at the Altoona plant from leaving.” Id. Additionally, in Hozier v. Midwest Fasteners, Inc., we”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have, however, recognized the possibility of a remedy where the plaintiff can demonstrate the presence of ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ Such circumstances include situations where the employer has acted in bad faith, or has actively concealed a change in the benefit plan, and the covered employees have been substantively harmed by virtue of the employer’s actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the requirements of section 402(b)(3) apply to plan terminations as well as plan amendments,”
2 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.