Groves v. Modified Retirement Plan for Hourly Paid Employees of the Johns Manville Corp. & Subsidiaries’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 109 · 1986
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Stone v. Travelers Corp. (1995), VanderKlok v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance (1992)
30 federal appellate · 16 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (§ 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1135 (§ 505 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Rideout v. United States · United States v. Grimaud · Hildebrand v. Social Security Administration · United States v. Enmons · Huddleston 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any administrator who fails or refuses to comply with a request for any information ... may in the court’s discretion be personally liable to such participant or beneficiary in the amount of up to $100 a day from the date of such failure or refusal____”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In accordance with regulations of the Secretary, every employee benefit plan shall— (1) provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant, and (2) afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ERISA provisions providing for recovery against the `plan' cannot be used to recover against the `plan administrator' because `the terms `plan' and `plan administrator' refer to two entirely distinct actors ... [and] are terms of art'.”
3 later decisions 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.