Anderson v. Mortell’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 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. § 1024 (§ 104 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 403 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. § 1105 (§ 405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Garcia v. Ingram · Donovan v. Cunningham · Kleinhans v. Trust · Brock v. TIC International Corp. · Turner v. CF&I STEEL CORP.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I find that the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that, at least as to the pension trust, a request was properly made in writing to the plan administrator in accordance with the statute. It is clear that up until December of 1981, Mr. Porcellini had merely made oral requests ... for a statement indicating the total benefits accrued in his pension and profit-sharing trusts and the documents which would enable him to verify those amounts. Although neither of the summary plan descriptions for the pension and/or profit-sharing trusts requires requests for information from the plan administrator to be made in writing, this requirement is expressly provided in the statute. Since plaintiff is invoking the punitive sanctions of ERISA for technical violations of the statute, he must establish that he has complied with the statutory prerequisites.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Moreover, even if the [defendants] were plan administrators, plaintiffs would not be entitled to the damages they seek for the alleged violations of sections [1024 and 1025]____ [Section] 1132(c), the only provision in ERISA which allows plan participants to recover money (up to $100 per day) for violations of ERISA’s reporting and disclosure requirements, applies only where plan administrators have refused to comply with a request for information. In the instant case, it is undisputed that plaintiffs did not make any written request upon the Plan administrator for the documents they now claim they had a right to review. Therefore, plaintiffs cannot recover under sections [1024 and 1025] of ERISA. Accordingly, the court finds in favor of [the defendants] ...”
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.