740 F. Supp. 680 - Solberg v. Inline Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2013
3 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. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1166 (§ 606 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (§ 5 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2107 (§ 8 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Hughes v. Rowe · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site of employment” that resulted "in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees excluding part-time employees,” the issue of whether “part-time employees” who meet the definitions of "affected employee” and “aggrieved employee” are entitled to the requisite notice when a covered employer orders a triggering event is still unresolved in this Circuit. 10 . In addition, the WARN Act requires the employer to provide notice to the "State dislocated worker unit” and the "chief elected official of the unit of local government within which such closing or layoff is to occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any employer who orders a plant closing or mass layoff in violation of section 2102 of this title shall be liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss as a result of such closing or layoff for ... benefits under an employee benefit plan ..., including the cost of medical expenses incurred during the employment loss which would have been covered under an employee benefit plan if the employment loss had not occurred. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While part-time employees are not counted in determining whether plant closing or mass layoff thresholds are reached, such workers are due notice.”). The definition of “employment loss” contained in § 2101(a)(6) does not expressly reference”
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.