Anschultz v. Connecticut General Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 1467 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Custer v. Pan American Life Insurance (1993), Willett v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield (1992)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 15 U.S.C. § 1011 (§ 1 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 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. § 1132 (§ 502 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 · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts · Union Labor Life Insurance v. Pireno · State Highway Commission of Wyoming v. Utah Const 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]irst, whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder’s risk; second, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and third, whether the practice is limited solely to entities within the insurance industry.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A civil action may be brought--(1) by a participant or beneficiary-- ... (B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“fails to satisfy all of the criteria of the McCarran-Ferguson Act and, thus, falls outside the ERISA saving clause”
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.