Laborers Local Joint Health Welfare Trust Fund v. Br Starnes Company of Florida Laborers Local Joint Health & Welfare Trust Fund’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 1454 · 1987
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably McGinnis v. Ingram Equipment Co. (1990), Riley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (2002)
32 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1145 (§ 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Foman v. Davis · United Steelworkers of America v. R. H. Bouligny, Inc. · Jurldine A. Donaldson v. Paul v. Clark · Carpenters Local Union No of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Pratt-Farnsworth Inc · Field v. Volkswagenwerk AG
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The rule is not intended to chill an attorney’s enthusiasm or creativity in pursuing factual or legal theories. The court is expected to avoid using the wisdom of hindsight and should test the signer's conduct by inquiring what was reasonable to believe at the time the pleading ... was submitted.” [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The phrase, “in the interests of the employer” is the operative one here. The surety does not act indirectly in the interests of the employer, but rather acts directly in the interests of employees damaged by the employer’s failure to pay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the defendants were not employers under ERISA. There is therefore no basis for awarding fees under S 502(g)(1) of ERISA . . . .”
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.