Dameron’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 18 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Fallick v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (1998), Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Sanders (1998)
4 federal appellate · 18 district · 2 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
Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Ross v. Bernhard · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
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.
“The plaintiff contends that, even if the statute of limitations for contract actions applies in this case, the period did not commence to run until she discovered the method by which Sinai calculated estimated Social Security benefits. The limitation period began running when the plaintiff was notified in June of 1980 that Sinai intended to offset her benefits by an estimate that was greater than the actual amount of Social Security benefits that she was receiving. While she was unaware of the exact reason for the difference between Sinai’s estimate and her actual benefits, she was at that point on notice that she should pursue her rights under ERISA.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“ERISA provides no explicit limitation period for bringing a private cause of action. In such circumstances, the federal courts look to state law for an analogous limitation provision to apply. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 , 105 S.Ct. 1938 , 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). This case deals with a claim that Sinai breached its duty under the pension plan to provide the plaintiffs with their vested rights. The issue in this case is analogous, therefore, to a breach of contract action. The limitation period for contract actions under Maryland law is three years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Eligible employees are entitled to receive a pension benefit each year after age 65 of an amount equal to ‘50% of his final average compensation, less eighty-three and one-third percent of his annualized Social Security Benefit.’ The plan defines a primary Social Security Benefit as ‘the estimated primary Social Security Benefit to which an eligible Employee (assuming he has always been a covered Employee under the Social Security Act) was or would become entitled upon reaching the age of sixty-five.’”
1 later decision 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.