Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 837 FSUPP2D 1255 - Schwade v. Total Plastics, Inc.

Schwade v. Total Plastics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
June 2013
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (§ 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (§ 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1169 (§ 609 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396K (§ 1912 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn · Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When we consider the practical reasons for requiring the subrogation agreement to be signed before paying any benefits, the reasonableness of that policy becomes abundantly clear. The Fund uses the subrogation agreements in negotiations with at-fault third parties. Once benefits are paid, participants and beneficiaries have little incentive (other than the fear of a lawsuit) to sign a subrogation agreement. If the Fund cannot require the agreement beforehand, it often will have to resort to lawsuits or at least the threat of lawsuits to obtain the agreements. Lawsuits cost money, sometimes a lot of it. In addition, delay becomes inevitable, and while the Fund is attempting to obtain the agreements from participants and beneficiaries, the Fund is hampered in its negotiations with at-fault third parties. In short, having the agreement in hand before paying benefits provides significant protection to trust assets.”
    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.