641 F. Supp. 1391 - Wright v. Nimmons’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 2004
8 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1021 (§ 101 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1025 (§ 105 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 403 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1108 (§ 408 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Donovan v. Bierwirth · Iron Workers Local # 272 v. Bowen · Donovan v. Cunningham
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“courts ... always bear in mind the ultimate consideration whether allowance or disallowance of particular relief would best effectuate the underlying purposes of ERISA--enforcement of strict fiduciary standards of care in the administration of all aspects of pension plans and promotion of the best interests of participants and beneficiaries.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unbargained for distribution of excess assets to participants represents an unintended windfall for employees”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The duty of loyalty ... is commonly expressed in the form of a prohibitive rule. In short, a fiduciary must not treat the trust res as if it were his own property; the fiduciary must not abuse his position of trust in order to advance his own selfish interests. On the other hand, the duty of due care ... is commonly expressed affirmatively. The fiduciary, therefore, must exercise at least that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would devote to his own affairs under like circumstances. In short, a fiduciary must treat the trust res as if it were his own property; the fiduciary must exercise his position of trust so that the beneficiary of the trust is not harmed as a consequence of his failure to exercise reasonable care.”
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.