Baum v. Nolan’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 1071 · 1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2003
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 1012 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1343 (§ 4043 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Michel v. United States · Malone v. White Motor Corp. · Bratton v. United States · Menhorn v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. · Gordon v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.
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.
“shall not apply with respect to any cause of action which arose, or any act or omission which occurred, before January 1, 1975.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“defect. See Haley, 509 F.2d at 1040 . We are not convinced that it is a structural violation of section 186(c)(5) to pay benefits to Brewery Fund beneficiaries who, by virtue of the New York courts' orders, are members of the merged Teamsters Fund. The possibility that such payments may affect the fund's solvency is more properly an issue of trust administration and therefore an ordinary matter of fiduciary duty not litigable under section 186. In light of the Participants' inability to articulate an analysis that would elevate the circumstances of this case to the level of a true”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baum v. Nolan“), wrongfully delayed the effective date of the merger, and is now relying on that delayed effective date to deny plaintiffs the increased pension benefits they expected under the terms of the merger. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Munson, J. ) granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in its entirety. The district court concluded that the wrongful conduct alleged by plaintiffs predates the effective date of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (”
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.