Lillian Yanks Rehmar v. Bernard L. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.2d 1362 · 1977
Citation profile
95 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably International Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Uaw v. Yard-Man Incorporated (1983), Wardle v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund (1980)
95 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from California Central District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox · Smith v. Evening News Assn. · Humphrey v. Moore
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 301 jurisdiction is not dependent upon the parties to the suit but rather the nature or subject matter of the action. Jurisdiction exists as long as the suit is for violation of a contract between a union and employer even if neither party is a union or an employer.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“they have acted arbitrarily or capriciously towards one of the persons to whom their trust obligations run.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“****** The complaint in this case was filed on January 10, 1977. It was submitted to the district court on cross-motion for summary judgment on a record consisting of affidavits and documents. On May 16, 1977, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the estate. In its seven page order the court acknowledged that the trustees possess broad discretion in setting eligibility rules for union pension benefits and that their decision is reversible only if it was arbitrary, capricious, made in bad faith, not supported by substantial evidence, or erroneous on a question of law. Applying this standard, the court found that the trustees had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the claim because they failed to make a full and fair disclosure of the terms of coverage, and because reliance may have been placed on what would be understood from a reasonable reading of the disclosed rules. The estate subsequently moved to amend the judgment to provide for interest and attorney’s fees. On June 24,1977, the court amended its judgment to provide the estate with prejudgment and post-judgment interest. The trustees contend that the court erred by applying principles of commercial insurance law. They argue that federal common law controls the issues in this case and that state commercial insurance law is not part of the federal common law applicable to welfare plans existing in collective bargaining contracts. They add that the denial of Program III benefits to the estate was neith”
3 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.