Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 839 F.2d 263 - Daniel v. Eaton Corp.

Daniel v. Eaton Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

839 F.2d 263 · 1988

Citation profile

240
cited by 240 later decisions
7
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 16 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 240 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Sprague v. General Motors Corp. (1998), Smith v. Ameritech (1997)

73 federal appellate · 16 district · 7 state decisions

10801988199020002010decided

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. § 1132 (§ 502 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)

Relies on Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Porter v. States · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · South Trust Bank of Alabama v. VISA, U.S.A., 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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “rational in light of the plan's provisions.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Roger D. Lynch v. Stoner & Associates, Inc., Asbestos Workers Union Local No. 8 Pension Fund · Bonnie Fuller v. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and Certain Affiliates
  2. “[u]nless an employer is shown to control administration of a plan, it is not a proper party defendant in an action concerning benefits.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Virginia M. Isaacs v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation · Donald Law v. Ernst & Young, Etc.
  3. “[i]n our view, the standard of review is no different whether the claim is actually denied or is deemed denied.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. University Hospitals of Cleveland v. Emerson Electric Company and Emerson Electric Company Benefit Plan · Jebian v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

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.