Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 849 F.2d 1039 - Young v. Standard Oil (Indiana)

Young v. Standard Oil (Indiana)’s Empirical Analysis

849 F.2d 1039 · 1988

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
2
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Hozier v. Midwest Fasteners, Inc. (1990), Black v. TIC Investment Corp. (1990)

63 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

9001988199020002010decided

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. § 1001 (§ 2 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. § 1051 (§ 201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Hanil Bank v. Michelman · Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton

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

  1. “In short, an employer does not owe its employees a fiduciary duty when it amends or abolishes a severance benefit plan.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “UIFO-I ") ("[T]he mere fact that a company has named itself as pension plan administrator or trustee does not restrict it from pursuing reasonable business behavior in negotiations concerning pension benefits not otherwise affected by the requirements of ERISA.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Management was free however, to exclude categories of employees from participation under the plan.”
    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.