Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan’s Empirical Analysis
698 F.2d 593 · 1983
Citation profile
120 federal appellate · 44 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 339 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Leigh v. Engle (1984), De Nobel (1989)
120 federal appellate · 44 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 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 States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
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 339 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when there has been a repudiation by the fiduciary which is clear and made known to the beneficiar[y].”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here the trustees of a plan impose a standard not required by the plan's provisions, or interpret the plan in a manner inconsistent with its plain words, or by their interpretation render some provisions of the plan superfluous, their actions may well be found to be arbitrary and capricious.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the degree of the offending party’s culpability or bad faith, (2) the ability of the offending party to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees, (3) whether an award of fees would deter other persons from acting similarly under like circumstances, (4) the relative merits of the parties’ positions, and (5) whether the action sought to confer a common benefit on a group of pension plan participants.”
9 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.