Nazay v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 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)
Relies on Williams v. Borough of West Chester · Brakeman v. Potomac Insurance Co. · Berger v. Edgewater Steel Co. · Northeast Department ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund · Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rule requiring prejudice before benefits can be denied is consonant with ERISA's goal of providing coverage which the participant reasonably anticipates receiving.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nazay v. Miller“[A] provision imposing a blanket 30% penalty is arbitrary and capricious and cannot be upheld under ERISA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nazay v. Miller“the Board's action cannot be justified even under [the arbitrary and capricious] standard of review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nazay v. Miller
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.