Haeffele v. Hercules Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 952 · 1988
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 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 Bates v. State Bar · Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co. · Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc. · Bruch v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. · Baker v. Lukens Steel Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the extent to which the participant was an intended beneficiary of the plan; 2) the extent to which the amendment is applied retroactively to strip the participant of previously earned credits; 3) the extent to which he was notified of the amendment; 4) the extent to which it is shown that actuarial concerns require denial of benefits to him.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where, as here, the plan administrator has a financial interest in the outcome, the interpretation or construction of a plan is subject to de novo review by the district court, and by this court as well.”
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.