Katsaros v. Cody’s Empirical Analysis
744 F.2d 270 · 1984
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 40 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 285 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009), Sommers Drug Stores Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan Enterprises, Inc. (1986)
93 federal appellate · 40 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 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. § 1102 (§ 402 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 Jizmejian v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Amax Coal Co. · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Zimmerman · Cashell v. United States
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 285 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“inquire 'whether the individual trustees, at the time they engaged in the challenged transactions, employed the appropriate methods to investigate the merits of the investment and to structure the investment.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan; (B) with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; (C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so; and (D) in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provisions of this subchapter or subchapter III of this chapter.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“), the express language of that section makes the breaching fiduciary liable not directly for losses to beneficiaries, but for "losses to the plan, " 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) (emphasis added). In addition, the record does not support Briand's contention that all claims by beneficiaries were paid. The district court found that NOITU had agreed to pay claims dating back only to March 1996 and that there was no evidence that earlier claims had been paid. Briand has not pointed to any evidence to show that that finding is clearly erroneous. 58 Briand's other arguments in opposition to the monetary portion of the judgment, including her contention that she should pay nothing because during her tenure as Fund administrator, Lasky repaid more of the first embezzled sum than he stole in his second embezzlement, so that the Fund ultimately benefited from her breach, are meritless and do not warrant discussion. C. The Injunction 59 ERISA § 409(a) also provides that a fiduciary who breaches her duty to a plan "shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate.”
5 later decisions 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.