Dennard v. Richards Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 306 · 1982
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Blau v. Del Monte Corporation (1985), Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. (1990)
82 federal appellate · 9 district · 9 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Gilbert v. First National Bank of Jackson · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Dewees v. United States · Iron Workers Local # 272 v. Bowen
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) uniformity of construction; (2) 'fair reading' and reasonableness of that reading; and (3) unanticipated costs.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'contrary to the clear language of the [p]lan,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where, as here, one party is arguing that the Plan’s provisions are not ambiguous and that the ... [Trustees have] applied the provisions of the Plan in direct contravention to its terms the District Court should ... [first determine] the correct interpretation of the Plan. From that finding, the court should ... [proceed] to determine if the ... [Trustees], even if incorrect in ... [their] determination, acted arbitrarily and capriciously as that term has been used in other ERISA cases.”
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.