Pierce v. Visteon Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
791 F.3d 782 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1166 (§ 606 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Bowles v. Russell · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. · City of Burlington v. Dague · Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“limiting the common-fund approach to cases outside the scope of a fee-shifting statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“fee-shifting statutes are designed to ensure that the victims retain full compensation,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ommon-law doctrines yield to statutes.”
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.