Vendura v. Boxer’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.3d 477 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 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 Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan · Rodriguez-Abreu v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Bellino v. Schlumberger Technologies, Inc. · Hunt v. United Bank & Trust Co. · Jm Wright v. Rr Donnelley & Sons Co Group Benefits Plan
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a contract uses different language in proximate and similar provisions, we commonly understand the provisions to illuminate one another and assume that the parties' use of different language was intended to convey different meanings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when parties to the same contract use such different language to address parallel issues ..., it is reasonable to infer that they intend this language to mean different things.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“longstanding principle against reading plan terms to be superfluous”
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.