Building Trades Employers Association Eg 80-862c 1982) v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund T F E’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2018
1 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · National Labor Relations Board v. Amax Coal Co. · Lyon v. California · South Trust Bank of Alabama v. VISA, U.S.A., 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'are limited in their discretion by ... the common law concept that a trustee may only act within the scope of his or her authority.' ") (quoting Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc., 698 F.2d 802 , 810 (6th Cir.1983), rev'd, 472 U.S. 559 , 105 S.Ct. 2833, 86 L.Ed.2d 447 (1985) (alteration in original)); Building Trades Employers Ass'n v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 761 F.2d 115 , 117 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam) ("[S]o long as the trustees act solely in the proper interests of the Fund and its participant-employees and do not abuse their powers by arbitrarily intermeddling in the private management and labor negotiations of the sponsoring employers, courts should refrain from faulting their actions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“dealt solely with the trustees’ insistence upon the execution of a participation agreement by sponsoring employers and [this court] was not asked to consider the capriciousness vel non of any of the agreement’s provisions....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a general rule federal courts should refrain from interfering with the administration of a pension plan unless its trustee or administrator has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.”
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.