Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 F.3d 637 - Rice v. Panchal

Rice v. Panchal’s Empirical Analysis

65 F.3d 637 · 1995

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
3
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. (1996), Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc. (1999)

34 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions

700199520002010decided

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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 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 Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck

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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a) of this title and not exempt under section 1003(b) of this title.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “cause of action falls within the scope of an ERISA provision that the plaintiff can enforce via § 502(a),”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(A) for the relief provided for in subsection (c) of this section, or (B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.””
    5 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.