Frommert v. Conkright’s Empirical Analysis
738 F.3d 522 · 2013
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
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. § 1022 (§ 102 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. § 1054 (§ 204 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 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn · Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk · Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. · McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the district court holds that the Plan’s notice violations justify the imposition of an equitable remedy, such a remedy will provide the relief that Plaintiffs seek. However, if it finds that no equitable remedy is available, it should separately consider Plaintiffs’ unreasonable-interpretation claim, under which the appropriate remedy is to enforce the terms of the Xerox Plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A summary plan description of any employee benefit plan shall be furnished to participants and beneficiaries as provided in section 1024(b) of this title [ERISA § 104(b) ]. The summary plan description shall include the information described in subsection (b) of this section, shall be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, and shall be sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to reasonably apprise such participants and beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plan. A summary of any material modification in the terms of the plan and any change in the information required under subsection (b) of this section shall be written in a manner ■ calculated to be understood by the average plan participant and shall be furnished in accordance with section 1024(b)(1) of this title [ERISA § 104(b)(1) ]. (b) The summary plan description shall contain the following information: ... the plan’s requirements respecting eligibility'for participation and benefits; a description of the provisions providing for-nonforfeitable pension benefits; circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to impose an equitable remedy, the district court must consider two questions: (1) what remedy is appropriate; (2) whether Plaintiffs have established the requisite level of harm as a result of the notice violations. We have previously held that, for claims of ERISA notice violations, plaintiffs need to satisfy a standard of “likely prejudice.” Burke v. Kodak Ret. Income Plan, 336 F.3d 103, 113 (2d Cir.2003). The Supreme Court has since clarified that the standard of harm that plaintiffs must show depends upon the equitable remedy that plaintiffs seek. See Amara, 131 S.Ct. at 1881-82 . For example, while “detrimental reliance” is a requirement for the remedy of estop-pel, it is not a strict requirement for every equitable remedy. See id. at 1881 . Thus, in considering whether Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of harm, the district court must consider this question in tandem with the equitable remedies it may impose. Id. at 1871 .”
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.