David v. Alphin’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.3d 327 · 2013
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (§ 413 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 4002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1321 (§ 4021 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Foman v. Davis · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) an injury-in-fact (i.e., a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest); (2) causation (i.e., a fairly traceable connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant); and (3) re-dressability (i.e., it is likely and not merely speculative that the plaintiffs injury will be remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks in' bringing'suit).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“review legal questions regarding standing de novo.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the district court held, Appellants have not claimed that the bank-affiliated funds became imprudent, based on fund performance or increased fees, during the limitations period. Rather, the TAC [ (third amended complaint) ] alleges that the affiliated funds “offered poor performance and high fees,” and that at each Committee meeting during the Removal Class Period, Appellees “had cause to remove the Affiliated Funds based on their poor performance and high fees, but failed to do so.” The TAC makes clear that the challenge to the prudence of the funds which underlies Count II is based on attributes of the funds that existed at the time of their initial selection-their alleged poor performance and high fees relative to alternative available fund options. Thus, the claim is not truly one of a failure to remove an imprudent investment. It is, at its core, simply another challenge to the initial selection of the funds to begin with. Again, as the initial selection of the Bank-affiliated funds undisputedly occurred in 1999, this claim is time-barred.”
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.