Rokohl v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
77 F.3d 126 · 1996
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2015
10 federal appellate · 4 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. § 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon · Wrenn v. McFadden · Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has given the phrase ‘relate to’ a broad common-sense meaning. A state law relates to an ERISA plan in the normal sense of the phrase if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan. A state law can relate to an ERISA plan even if that law was not specifically designed to affect such plans, and even if its effect is only indirect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven though, in our de novo review, we could consider summary judgment on that issue, we think it advisable to remand the claim to the district court for it to give this issue its initial consideration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The heart of Rokohl’s claim is that he was wrongfully discharged- by Texaco on the basis of his disability. As such, Rokohl’s claim would have arisen whether Texaco had terminated his employment through the use of the [disability] plan or in some other manner.... Indeed, if we were to accept Texaco’s argument that ERISA preempts Rokohl’s [state law disability] claim, we would effectively permit Texaco to hide. behind its ERISA plan in avoidance of state anti-discrimination laws. To do that would be to allow an employer to disguise its firing decisions — even decisions to dismiss an employee because of his or her race, gender, age, or disability — as benefits decisions, in avoidance of state anti-discrimination statutes, simply by adopting an ERISA-qualified plan and awarding each discharged employee benefits -under that plan.”
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.