Pane v. Dandan’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If plaintiff is neither an employee, participant or beneficiary as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1002 , ERISA does not provide plaintiff with a remedy. However, plaintiff has apparently confused the concept of ‘preemption’ from that of ‘standing.’ A claim is preempted so long as it ‘relates to’ an employer-sponsored plan; preemption is dependent upon the nature of the plan involved, not the plaintiffs ‘status’ under that plan. By contending that he was not an employee, participant or beneficiary, plaintiff simply admits that he has no ERISA remedy.””
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.