Perry v. United Food & Commercial Workers District Unions 405 & 442’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 238 · 1995
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Donaho v. FMC Corp. (1996), United States v. Philip Morris Inc. (2000)
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395Y (§ 1862 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Landscape Properties, Inc. v. Vogel · Nowak v. Trezevant
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is the least demanding form of judicial review of administrative action.... When it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation, based on the evidence, for a particular outcome, that outcome is not arbitrary or capricious.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“" plain language of the statutory provision creating the private cause of action does expressly state that the cause of action exists when a plan fails to provide for primary payment ‘in accordance’ with the Medicare as Secondary Payer provisions. Because those provisions dictate only the liability of private insurance plans relative to the Medicare program, it appears completely consistent with the plain language of the provision creating the private cause of action that such a cause of action exists only where a plan has failed properly to provide for its liability vis-a-vis Medicare. In all such cases, the fiscal integrity of the Medicare program that the MSP statute was designed to protect, would be at issue. Thus, the finding of the district' court and the Sixth Circuit that the fiscal integrity of the Medicare program must be in jeopardy in order for the private cause of action to exist is not contrary to the plain language of the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is established a private cause of action for damages (which shall be in an amount double the amount otherwise provided) in the case of a primaiy plan which fails to provide for primaiy payment (or appropriate reimbursement) in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2)(A).” Id. § 1395y(b)(3)(A). 4 . The”
2 later decisions 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.