Griffis v. Delta Family-Care Disability’s Empirical Analysis
723 F.2d 822 · 1984
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. (1990), Guy v. Southeastern Iron Workers' Welfare Fund (1989)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Gilbert v. First National Bank of Jackson · Dewees v. United States · Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh · Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is limited to determining whether [Kase's] interpretation was made rationally and in good faith--not whether it was right.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the record presents factual issues, the court must deny the motion and proceed to trial ... a court may discover questions of fact even though both parties, in support of cross-motions for summary judgment, have asserted no such questions exist ... issues raised by the parties on cross-motions for summary judgment ... must have no doubt as to the relevant facts that are beyond dispute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]ince there is generally no statutory time limit for obtaining an annulment, the Plans could never be certain that a former beneficiary’s marriage would hot be annulled and the Plans’ obligation to pay benefits reinstated. The Plans would be left dangling upon the uncertainties of the success or failure of that second marriage. Since Delta’s contributions to the Plans are made upon ac-tuarially determined requirements, there would be no adequate way of pre-funding for such contingencies. Also, since the Plans would not be a party to the annulment proceedings, their future obligations would be determined by circumstances over which they had little knowledge or control. These uncertainties would affect both the operation and administration of the Plans as well as their ability to accurately project future funding needs.”
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.