Wilson v. Board of Trustees of the Pension Trust Fund’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.2d 1299 · 1977
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 1995 · most notably Brown v. Retirement Committee of Briggs & Stratton Retirement Plan (1986), Ca 79-3491 Turner v. Local Union No International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America (1979)
41 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Pomponio v. United States · Alvares v. Erickson · Burroughs v. Board of Trustees of the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not extend to day-to-day fiduciary administration of welfare and pension funds.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may well be, as Wilson insists, that the actuaries who designed the Fund never considered the possibility of relieving persons such as Wilson from the consequences of the break-in-employment rule. This provides no justification for our intervention almost two decades after the Fund’s inception to redesign it in a manner that conforms to our imprecise notions of actuarial soundness. Wilson’s failure to qualify for the disability benefits he seeks undoubtedly makes funds available for other beneficiaries of the Fund and the consequence is unmistakably in accordance with the terms of the Fund. We cannot say that a Fund so operating is unreasonable and arbitrary. Rules in many settings frequently overreach in order to secure their objectives with certainty. This does not in all circumstances make them unreasonable or arbitrary. One must weigh the extent of the overreaching against the importance of certainty. We have done this and find the overreaching, if such it be, in this case tolerable and neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.” Id. at 1302 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) An Employee shall be entitled to retire on a Service Pension if — on or after June 1, 1964 — he has credit for at least 20 years of service. A person who had 20 or more years of service credit, but who, prior to June 1, 1964 lost such credit because of a break in employment, as defined in Article III, Section 5, shall not be entitled to a Service Pension.””
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.