Rebaldo v. Cuomo’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.2d 133 · 1984
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 23 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2010 · most notably New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance (1995), McCoy v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1991)
68 federal appellate · 23 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395B · 42 U.S.C. § 1395L (§ 1833 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395W (§ 1844 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Harris v. McRae · King v. Smith · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'tenuous, remote, or peripheral' " manner. Id. (quoting Shaw, 463 U.S. at 100 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2901 n. 21). The Second Circuit concluded that when "a State statute of general application does not affect the structure, the administration, or the type of benefits provided by an ERISA plan, the mere fact that the statute has some economic impact on the plan does not require that the statute be invalidated.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a State, any political subdivisions thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of either, which purports to regulate, directly or indirectly, the terms and conditions of employee benefit plans.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a state law must 'purport [ ] to regulate, ... the terms and conditions of employee benefit plans' to fall within the preemption provision”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.