Washington Star Co. v. International Typographical Union Negotiated Pension Plan’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.2d 1502 · 1984
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2014 · most notably Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal. (1993), Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. RA Gray & Co. (1984)
20 federal appellate · 11 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 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 4201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1391 (§ 4211 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (§ 4213 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1401 (§ 4221 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. · Ferguson v. Skrupa · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Use by plan actuary in determining unfunded vested benefits of plan for computing withdrawal liability of employer The corporation may prescribe by regulation actuarial assumptions which may be used by a plan actuary in determining the unfunded vested benefits of a plan for purposes of determining an employer’s withdrawal liability under this part. Withdrawal liability under this part shall be determined by each plan on the basis of— (1) actuarial assumptions and methods which, in the aggregate, are reasonable (taking into account the experience of the plan and reasonable expectations) and which, in combination, offer the actuary’s best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan, or (2) actuarial assumptions and methods set forth in the corporation’s regulations for purposes of determining an employer’s withdrawal liability. (b) Factors determinative of unfunded vested benefits of plan for computing withdrawal liability of employer In determining the unfunded vested benefits of a plan for purposes of determining an employer’s withdrawal liability under this part, the plan actuary may— (1) rely on the most recent complete actuarial valuation used for purposes of section 412 of Title 26 and reasonable estimates for the interim years of the unfunded vested benefits, and (2) in the absence of complete data, rely on the data available or on data secured by a sampling which can reasonably be expected to be representative of the status of the entire plan. (c) Determinatio”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to enforce, vacate, or modify the arbitrator's award.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The cost allocation problem addressed by the MPPAA is one of enormous difficulty. Not even the total amount of a plan’s underfunding is known until the plan terminates or becomes insolvent. It is clearly rational, however, to assess and begin to collect an individual employer’s liability immediately at the time of its withdrawal, even though the plan itself may be on-going. The Star specifically criticizes Congress' solution to the problem of cost assessment and allocation on the ground that it imposes liability for the large accumulations of pre-MPPAA underfunding only upon the group of employers who were contributing to multiemployer plans as of April 29, 1980. Employers who withdrew from multiemployer plans before that date are assessed no liability. Employers who did not begin contributing to a plan until after that date are liable only for their proportionate share of the changes in unfunded vested liability during each plan year in which they contribute. But Congress clearly had a rationale for choosing the solution it did. Congress could not have imposed liability on employers who withdrew before April 29, 1980, without substantially increasing the MPPAA’s retroactive effect. And Congress could not have imposed liability for pre-MPPAA underfunding on employers who began contributing to a plan subsequent to the enactment of the MPPAA without discouraging new entrants to multiemployer plans and thus defeating the MPPAA's purpose.”
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.