Naugle v. J O'Connell R’s Empirical Analysis
833 F.2d 1391 · 1987
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Sandoval v. Aetna Life and Casualty Insurance Co L (1992), Kimber v. Thiokol Corp. (1999)
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 403 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw · Parham v. J. L. · United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson · Roark v. Lewis · Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious if it is based on substantial evidence and is not the result of a mistake of law”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“restitution, based on mistake of fact, will not be denied because of forgetfulness of once known facts or negligent failure to ascertain the true facts.” Naugle v. O'Connell, 833 F.2d 1391, 1398 (10th Cir.1987) (quoting Sawyer v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 236 F.2d 518, 521 (10th Cir.1956)); see Restatement (First) of Restitution § 59 (1937) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because we have determined that the trustees’ payment of pension benefits to Naugle was based on their mistake of fact as to his employment status, we determine that they are entitled to restitution of the $6,902.89 which they have already paid to Naugle plus interest on that amount.”
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.