Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 666 FSUPP 735 - Greenblatt v. Budd Co.

Greenblatt v. Budd Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
8
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Christopher v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1992), Lister v. Stark (1989)

12 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions

2501987199020002010decided

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. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 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 Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts · Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne

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

  1. “"The cause of action for misrepresentation alleged by the plaintiff at Count II of his complaint should not be preempted because, simply put, the premise underlying this action was that plaintiff was deceived by the verbal statements made and the actions taken by his employer. That the subject of the deception concerned pension benefits is only incidental and not essential to the plaintiff's cause of action. Like promises for a raise in salary, a promotion, or the use of tickets to a baseball game, plaintiff's employer's promise to provide the plaintiff with certain benefits at some unknown time in the future, upon which the plaintiff could reasonably rely, is the essence of the fraud alleged."”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it would defy logic to presume that Congress intended to preempt the common law action of fraud in a situation of this type.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “establish pension plan regulation exclusively as a federal concern,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.