Andre v. Salem Technical Services’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2011
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 33 U.S.C. § 914
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not so bizarre or so out of line with existing precedent--that he necessarily stumbles over the low threshold of the 'colorable' requirement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because [plaintiff] no longer works for [employer], he does not fall within the statutory provision for suits by current 'employees.' "). 26 In reaching this conclusion, we similarly reject plaintiffs' related argument that their standing as participants should be judged as of the time of the ERISA violation and not as of the time of their lawsuit. Such an interpretation runs counter to the natural meaning of ERISA itself. Section 502 provides that "[a] civil action may be brought ... by a participant ... to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It [ERISA] does not impose an affirmative duty to explain benefit plans with the utmost clarity. Thus an employee’s lack of care in reading corporate documents does not support the proposition that the company has misled the employee. No doubt it is possible for an employer to issue documents so garbled and ambiguous, so apt to mislead, that the employer would later be estopped from denying benefits although it had made no specific misrepresentations. But that is not this case. Salem’s documents were clear enough to put Andre on notice that his enrollment in the health plan would not occur without some further effort on his part.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.