Sullivan v. LTV Aerospace & Defense Co.’s Empirical Analysis
82 F.3d 1251 · 1996
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance (2006), Pinto v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance (2000)
39 federal appellate · 16 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Santosky v. Kramer · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Addington v. Texas
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n cases where the plan administrator is shown to have a conflict of interest, the test for determining whether the administrator’s interpretation of the plan is arbitrary and capricious is as follows: Two inquiries are pertinent. First, whether the determination made by the administrator is reasonable, in light of possible competing interpretations of the plan; second, whether the evidence shows that the administrator was in fact influenced by such conflict. If the court finds that the administrator was in fact influenced by the conflict of interest, the deference otherwise accorded the administrator’s decision drops away and the court interprets the plan de novo.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no right to a jury trial in a suit brought to recover ERISA benefits.”). 2 . He subsequently submitted a First Amended Complaint on June 17, 2002 and a Second Amended Complaint on October 16, 2003, but ultimately withdrew the latter. (Order, Nov. 26, 2003) Thus, the operative pleading is Kreinik’s First Amended Complaint. 3 . The ERISA statute defines”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) In determining the appropriate standard of review, a court should be guided by principles of trust law ...[;] (2) Principles of trust law require courts to review a denial of plan benefits under a de novo standard unless the plan provides to the contrary[;] (3) Where the plan provides to the contrary by granting the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits, trust principles make a deferential standard of review appropriate^ and] (4) If a benefit plan gives discretion to an administrator or fiduciary who is operating under a conflict of interest, that conflict must be weighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.”
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.