Marshall v. Baggett’s Empirical Analysis
616 F.3d 849 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 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 Thomson v. Wooster · Nishimatsu Construction Co. v. Houston National Bank · Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright · Black v. Lane · Ohio Central Railroad v. Central Trust 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A default judgment is unassailable on the merits but only so far as it is supported by well-pleaded allegations, assumed to be true.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Entry of default judgment does not preclude a party from challenging the sufficiency of the complaint on appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We conclude that for the plaintiffs to prevail against actions taken by Ms. Baggett in her role as a corporate officer, we must find a theory in the complaint to support imposing personal liability. Yet, we find nothing in the complaint to support an assertion that Baggett Masonry, Inc. was a sham corporation or an indistinct identity of Ms. Baggett. There are also no allegations of fraud or other illegal machinations. The Agreement is clear on its face that Ms. Baggett executed the contract in her official capacity as president of Baggett Masonry, Inc. Accordingly, she cannot be held individually liable for the allegedly delinquent payments of the corporation.”
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.