80 F. Supp. 2d 510 - Pearson v. Component Technology Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 4201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (§ 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Smith v. Harmsen
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We need to know what G.E. wants us to do. We are proceeding with items 2, 3 and 4, but we need to get confirmation from G.E. on each one of these items. Obviously, without G.E.'s help we cannot proceed to complete our plans. I am prepared to do whatever G.E. wants relative to CompTech.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“consistent with the type of control a secured creditor legitimately may exercise over a defaulting debtor”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“exhibit[ed] such a high degree of control over the debtor corporation”
2 later decisions 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.