Pilkington PLC v. Perelman’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.3d 1396 · 1995
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2022
8 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1058 (§ 208 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. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Legal authority does not support [the fiduciaries'] contention that a mere ratings scan satisfied their fiduciary duty of loyalty to the plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“decisions must be made with an eye single to the interests of the participants and beneficiaries.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“reversion maximization figured prominently in [the sponsor's] spin-off/plan termination decision”
2 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.