Iam National Pension Fund Benefit Plan v. Wakefield Industries Incorporated Division of Capehart Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
699 F.2d 1254 · 1983
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably El-Fadl v. Central Bank (1996), Bally Export Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Balicar, Ltd., a Foreign Corporation, and Juliano Internacional S.A., a Foreign Corporation (1986)
14 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco · Wilson v. United States
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“enforcement provisions have been designed specifically to provide ... participants and beneficiaries with broad remedies for redressing or preventing violations of' the Act. The intent of the Committee is to provide the full range of legal and equitable remedies available in both state and federal courts and to remove jurisdictional and procedural obstacles which in the past appear to have hampered effective enforcement of fiduciary responsibilities under state law for recovery of benefits due to participants. For actions in federal courts, nationwide service of process is provided in order to remove a possible procedural obstacle to having all proper parties before the Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where an action under this subchapter is brought in a district court of the United States, it may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where the defendant resides or may be found, and process may be served in any other district where a defendant resides or may be found.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“of the type initially required to obtain jurisdiction over a party,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.