628 F. Supp. 707 - Corum v. Farm Credit Services’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 16 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Dister v. Continental Group, Inc. (1988), Conkwright v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1991)
22 federal appellate · 16 district · 14 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 2001 (Agricultural Credit Act of 1987) · 12 U.S.C. § 2093 · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · 27 Cal. 3d 167 - Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo · United States v. Knotts · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lost opportunity to accrue additional benefits”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The purpose of [§ 510] was primarily to prevent “unscrupulous employers from discharging or harassing their employees in order to keep them from obtaining vested pension rights.” Since plaintiffs pension rights were vested, he cannot maintain that defendant fired him in order to prevent plaintiff from obtaining vested pension rights.... Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that defendant violated ERISA because in discharging plaintiff, defendant prevented plaintiff from accruing the additional benefits which are associated with continued employment. In order to recover on his ERISA claim, plaintiff must establish that defendant discharged him with the specific intent to interfere with plaintiffs rights under defendant’s protected benefit plans. Denying a vested employee the opportunity to accrue additional benefits, however, has only an incidental effect on plaintiffs right to benefits. Such an impact, moreover, “would result from any discharge.” Where the only evidence that an employer specifically intended to violate ERISA is the employee’s lost opportunity to accrue additional benefits, the employee has not put forth sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan, this subchapter, section 1201 of this title, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act [ 29 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.], or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan, this sub-chapter, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act.”
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.