Donovan v. Bierwirth’s Empirical Analysis
754 F.2d 1049 · 1985
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc. (1992), Lowen v. Tower Asset Management, Inc. (1987)
41 federal appellate · 13 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. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Desist v. United States · Midgett v. Slayton · Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“appropriate remedy in cases of breach of fiduciary duty is the restoration of the trust beneficiaries to the position they would have occupied but for the breach of trust.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach.”
8 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.”
2 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.