Bruchac v. Universal Cab. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2011
2 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 26 U.S.C. § 404 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1061 (§ 211 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1301 (§ 4001 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1303 (§ 4003 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1321 (§ 4021 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The stated Congressional policy of ERISA is “to protect ... the interests of participants in employee benefit plans ... by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to Federal Courts.” 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (b). The Supreme Court has noted that the primary purpose of ERISA is to protect the interest of beneficiaries in pension plans. Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 446 U.S. 359, 361, 362 , 100 S.Ct. 1723, 1726, 1727 , 64 L.Ed.2d 354 (1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a promise was made; (2) the promissor should have reasonably expected to induce reliance on the part of the promisee; (3) the promisee actually relied on the promise; (4) enforcement of the promise is necessary to avoid injustice.”
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.