San Pedro Fishermen's Welfare Trust Fund Local 33 v. Di Bernardo’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.2d 1344 · 1982
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Nachwalter v. Christie (1986), Musto v. American General Corp. (1988)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Relies on Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Desist v. United States · Thurber v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan · Lewis v. Seanor Coal Co. · Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Alco Express Co.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It would be, at the least, incomplete to require for the benefit of the employees and to prevent collusive or fraudulent side arrangements between employers and union representatives that the benefits which the employees are to receive from union welfare funds shall be specified in a written agreement with the employer and yet to permit the written foundation on which the welfare fund rests ... to be the subject of oral modifications. It would expose employer and union representatives alike to the temptations of corrupt bargains, for it would permit the union to extract from an employer a secret promise to pay some other amount into the fund without requiring such payments to become a matter of record and thus would frustrate the purpose of § 302(c)(5). Moreover, the employees have a right to know if the obligation to make the payments into the fund is modified; otherwise they might be led to remain at their jobs in reliance on the benefits which the formal agreement has promised, after they have been eroded by oral modification of the obligation to make the payments supporting such benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The policy behind § 302(c)(5) requires that contract interpretation be confined to the written terms of the welfare trust fund agreement. Oral statements regarding the meaning of a written trust fund agreement are difficult to prove and judicial recognition of such oral statements may invite collusion and controversy to the detriment of the beneficiaries. (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“contract interpretation [must] be confined to the written terms of the welfare trust fund agreement.”
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.