Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 670 F. Supp. 2d 264 - Fishbein v. Miranda

670 F. Supp. 2d 264 - Fishbein v. Miranda’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
February 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 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. § 1145 (§ 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320 (§ 1120 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited · Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. Knudson · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.

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

  1. “redress ... violations or (ii) to enforce ... the terms of the plan.” Plaintiffs make claims for equitable relief under this section, demanding an accounting of all monies received from Duane Reade pursuant to the Duane Reade Settlement and a judgment ordering Defendants [Allied Fund] and Local 210 Fund to remit to Plaintiff [UMM Fund] the same percentage of the Duane Reade Settlement monies as would be owed to Plaintiff [UMM Fund] under the Duane Reade CBA. Plaintiff further demands an accounting of all monies received by Defendants [Allied Fund] and Local 210 Fund since January 1, 2005 pursuant to all CBAs in which Plaintiff is named and a judgment ordering Defendants to relinquish all monies owing to Plaintiff [UMM Fund] under these CBAs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, the requirement of valid and binding contracts between other parties is satisfied since Plaintiffs allege that the Unions entered into valid CBAs with the various Contributing Employers. Second, Plaintiffs establish that the contract was intended for Plaintiffs’ benefit. Third, the Plaintiffs establish that benefit to,them under the CBAs is immediate rather than incidental,, since Plaintiffs allege that the CBAs provide that ‘[fjrom and out of the contributions made to the Allied Welfare Fund as specified above, Eight Dollars per employee per week shall be unconditionally and irrevocably allocated and paid to [Plaintiff UMMF].’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is hereby agreed ,.. the Employer shall pay to the Allied Welfare Fund the sum of Fifty-Nine ($59.00) Dollars, each and every week for each employee who is employed within the' bargaining unit:.. .From and out of the contributions made to the Allied Welfare Fund as specified above, Eight Dollars per employee per week shall be unconditionally and irrevocably allocated and paid to the Union Mutual Medical Fund ... for the benefit of retired employees of the Employer and retired employees of all other employers similarly situated and their families. 5”
    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.