Franchise Tax Board Of The State Of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust For Southern California’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 1307 · 1982
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2003 · most notably Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California (1983), MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. (1988)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Houltin v. United States · International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Street · Ray v. Atlantic Richfield 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the provisions of this subchapter ... shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 514(a)’s [1144(a)] scope, however, is not unlimited. The legislative choice of the word ‘regulate’ in Section 514’s definitions suggests that the section was not designated to preempt state laws having only a tangential, non-regulatory effect on benefits plans.... In my opinion, the California levying statute falls within this narrow category of state laws. The state statute seeks only to secure payment of delinquent taxes and treats trust funds as merely another taxpayer asset the state may tap to achieve this aim. The statute does not regulate, either directly or indirectly, plan reporting, disclosure, participation, funding, vesting, benefit calculation, or the trustees’ fiduciary responsibilities.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Extending similar protection [to that of 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1) ] to vacation funds is consistent with the statute, however, if not demanded by it. Both types of ERI-SA plans have the same goal: to provide accumulated money to a worker for future beneficial use. The worker’s money deserves trust protection from dissipation regardless of the purpose for which mon- ey has been set aside under ERISA.” Id. at 1309 .”
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.