Kramer v. Barney’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.3d 1080 · 1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Lopresti v. Terwilliger (1997), Custer v. Sweeney (1996)
17 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The existence of a fiduciary relationship under ERISA, on the merits, is a mixed question of law and fact.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Michael Hamilton, Independent Fiduciary, Sciw Health & Welfare Trust Fund Southern Council of Industrial Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. James W. Carell Achiever Corporation J.W. Carell Administrators, Inc., & J.W. Carell Administrators & Consultants, Inc. Diversified Health Management, Inc. · 362 F. Supp. 3d 627 - Nelsen v. Principal Global Investors Trust Co.“). Having carefully examined the opinions, we agree with those circuits and likewise conclude that Congress did not intend to prohibit arbitration of ERISA claims. III. 44 The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with directions to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration of plaintiffs' ERISA claims. NOTES: 1 The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 2 Armijo involved a previous, but substantially similar, NASD rule. 3”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brian Williams“an ERISA plan to implicate ordinary preemption under section 514(a), thus disposing of the first prong of our analysis. Proceeding to the second prong, we have little difficulty in determining that the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction does not fall within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of section 502(a). Initially we note that the plaintiffs were not acting as”
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.