Sokol v. Bernstein’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 532 · 1986
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc. (1992), Lee v. Burkhart (1993)
69 federal appellate · 10 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 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co. · Sommers Drug Stores Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan Enterprises, Inc.
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ERISA grants no private right of action by a beneficiary qua beneficiary; rather, it accords beneficiaries the right to sue on behalf of the entire plan if a fiduciary breaches the plan's terms.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Russell sheds light on another major reason to disallow recovery of extra-contractual damages under Section 502(a)(3) —Congress’ glaring omission of any mention of extra contractual damages in general, or emotional distress in particular: “significantly, the statutory provision explicitly authorizing a beneficiary to bring an action to enforce his rights under the plan — Section 402(a)(1)(b) ..— says nothing about the recovery of extra contractual damages, or about the possible consequences of delay in the planned administrative’s processing of a disputed claim.” Id. at 309. Again, there is nothing in this excerpt to indicate that the underlying reasoning does not apply to Section 502(a)....”
4 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.