Combs v. King’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.2d 818 · 1985
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably United States v. Sarault (1988), Brick Masons Pension Trust v. Industrial Fence & Supply, Inc. (1988)
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1023 (§ 103 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1027 (§ 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1059 (§ 209 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Turkette · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin · Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“every employer shall ... maintain records with respect to each of his employees sufficient to determine the benefits due or which may become due to such employees”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[wjhile the Second Circuit has not specifically addressed the applicable standard where a benefit fund contests the amount of contributions owed by an employer, other circuits to consider the issue have held that where a benefit fund produces evidence raising genuine questions concerning an employer’s failure to maintain adequate records, the burden shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence either of the precise number of hours worked or to negate the reasonableness of the inferences to be drawn from the plaintiff fund’s evidence. where an employer fails to keep proper records in conformity with his statutory duty, an employee carries his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“sought an injunction requiring the defendant to perform all obligations imposed by ERISA, the Wage Agreements, and the Trusts,” and demanded that the defendant present all records regarding hours worked for inspection or copying. Id. at 819 . After noting that “[t]he legislative history of ERISA demonstrates that it was enacted, at least in part, to increase the information and data available to participants,” id. at 822 , the Eleventh Circuit concluded that”
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.