Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 F.2d 753 - Brock v. Nellis

Brock v. Nellis’s Empirical Analysis

809 F.2d 753 · 1987

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
February 2020
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably Gluck v. Unisys Corp. (1992), Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc. (1992)

16 federal appellate · 8 district ·

27019871990200020102020decided

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. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (§ 413 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 Bonner v. City of Prichard · Vigman v. Community National Bank & Trust Co.

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To charge the Secretary [of Labor] with actual knowledge of an ERISA violation, it is not enough that he had notice that something was awry; he must have had specific knowledge of the actual breach of duty upon which he sues.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation or (B) in the case of an omission, the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or (2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation; except that in the case of fraud or concealment, such action may be commenced not later than six years after the date of discovery of such breach or violation.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Congress evidently did not desire that those who violate [the trust they hold] could easily find refuge in a time bar.”
    2 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.