Donati v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.3d 667 · 2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 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 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Sprague v. General Motors Corp. · Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. · Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sprague , 133 F.3d at 404 ; see also Donati v. Ford Motor Co. , 821 F.3d 667 , 674-75 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Sprague and holding same). The Sixth Circuit has carved out a narrow exception to the Sprague rule for cases where the plaintiff can show”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a written representation; (2) plan provisions which, although unambiguous, did not allow for individual calculation of benefits; and (3) extraordinary circumstances in which the balance of equities strongly favors the application of estoppel,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[p]rinciples of estoppel ... cannot be applied to vary the terms of unambiguous plan documents; estoppel can only be invoked in the context of ambiguous plan provisions.”
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.