Kapuscinski v. Plan Administrator’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.2d 427 · 1981
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 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 Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · McAvoy v. H B Sherman Co. · Utility Workers Union of America v. Consumers Power Company
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clear that ERISA allows GM, as administrator of the Pension Plan, to deduct any workers' compensation awards from its retirees' pensions pursuant to the Pension Plan”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to the extent that the Michigan statute is construed to inhibit setoffs pursuant to a pension plan governed by ERISA,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'ERISA makes clear that even indirect state action bearing on private pensions may encroach upon the area of exclusive federal concern.'”
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.