Nieto v. Ecker’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 868 · 1988
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009), Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc. (1992)
65 federal appellate · 17 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 26 U.S.C. § 4975 (§ 2003 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1108 (§ 408 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 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 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Mann v. Koob · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] civil action may be brought -by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan . . . .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“provisions, Secs. 406(a)(1), 408(b), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1106(a)(1), 1108(b). 20 We stated: 45 [ERISA] prohibits certain transactions between ERISA plans and their parties in interest. Some of the allegations in the complaint, if true, establish that [the attorney] participated in such”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ourts may find it difficult or impossible to undo such illegal transactions unless they have jurisdiction over all parties who allegedly participated in them.”
5 later decisions 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.