West’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Maez v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph, Inc. (1995), Barker v. American Mobil Power Corp. (1995)
6 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co. · Sutton v. Weirton Steel Division of National Steel Corp. · Fort Vancouver Plywood Co. 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One of the major purposes of ERISA is to ensure that employees receive their vested benefits when the pension plans are terminated. To assure the protection of vested pension benefits, ERISA prescribes vesting and accrual schedules and provides that an employee’s right to his normal retirement benefit is “nonfor-feitable.” ERISA, however, expressly exempts employee welfare benefit plans from the sections concerned with vesting and accrual. 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (1). While ERISA, in 29 U.S.C. § 1322 , also guarantees the payment of “all nonfor-feitable benefits,” this protection is applicable only to pension, stock bonus or profit-sharing plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1321 (a); 26 U.S.C. § 401 (a). There is no language in ERISA which provides for the accrual of welfare benefits or guarantee that such benefits are vested or nonforfeitable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan, this title, section 3001 [ 29 U.S.C. Sec 1201 ], or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act, or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may be entitled under the plan, this title, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no language in ERISA which provides for the accrual of welfare benefits or guarantee[s] that such benefits are vested or nonforfeitable.”
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.