Laasko v. Xerox Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute · Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA · Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc. · Grosz-Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Insurance
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 7.14. Restriction of Venue. Any action in connection with the Plan by an Employee or beneficiary may only be brought in Federal District Court in Monroe County, New York.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marin v. Xerox Corp.
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.