Jung v. Fmc Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
755 F.2d 708 · 1985
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 11 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch (1989), Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. (1990)
91 federal appellate · 11 district · 11 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. § 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. § 1081 (§ 301 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. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Amax Coal Co. · Blau v. Del Monte Corporation · Fentron Industries, Inc. v. National Shopmen Pension Fund · Lillian Yanks Rehmar v. Bernard L. Smith
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Struble involved an existing trust fund, and a rejection by employer-selected trustees of a proposed increase in benefits in favor of reducing the contributions the employers had agreed to dedicate. Plans like the one before us have no arrangement for funding, the employer has formulated the terms under which benefits will be paid, benefits are paid directly by the employer, and the employer makes all decisions on claims. Whatever may be the appropriate standard of review in cases like Struble, the arbitrary and capricious standard seems adequate for the purposes of ERISA in the situation before us. Where, as here, the employer’s denial of benefits to a class avoids a very substantial outlay, the reviewing court should consider that fact in applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. Less deference should be given to the trustee’s decision.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in general is intended to tide an employee over while seeking a new job, [and] certainly could be considered an `unemployment benefit.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the language used by the employer in holding out the plan is open to a construction supporting denial of a claim, the court should see whether the choice of that construction is arbitrary and capricious.”
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.