O'Toole v. Arlington Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 94 · 1982
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 43 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Beddall v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (1998), Media Duplication Services, Ltd. v. HDG Software, Inc. (1991)
24 federal appellate · 43 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Gibbs v. Buck · National Bank v. Insurance Co. · The "S. S. Osborne" · General Motors Corp. v. Buha
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he bank’s responsibility as dispository for the pension funds did not include the discretionary, advisory activities described by the statute — activities, which were in fact performed by [the trustees]. In the absence of these activities, it would be unfair to impose on [the bank] the responsibilities and liability created by the statute for fiduciaries.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a short step from saying that an individual beneficiary should not be allowed to alienate or assign his benefits to saying that one of his creditors similarly should not have the right to attach those benefits. To say, however, that under [§ 1056(d)(1) ] the depository of the entire fund is prohibited from levying on the fund for security purposes requires not a step, but a leap to a different plane. The focus must be changed from the protection of the benefits of each person, viewed separately, to the protection of all those benefits, viewed in the aggregate. While such a change in focus might result in laudable protection, it is not supported by the wording of § 1056(d), the statutory prohibition. The prohibition is directed at “benefits provided,” not the corpus of the fund; and the potential for assignment or alienation, which is limited by the prohibition, would seem to lie with the beneficiary, not the depository. [ ] We would be hard-pressed [therefore] to find that § 1056(d) was intended to do more than address the individual beneficiary’s right of access to his share of the fund.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he paucity of appellants' presentation of evidence justifies the district court's conclusion that they had not met [their] burden.”
3 later decisions 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.