Lehman v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.3d 1203 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (§ 204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1085 (§ 305 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 403 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 Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Boggs v. Boggs · Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. · Richardson v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp. · Gonzalez v. City of Maywood
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where an ERISA Plan grants discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, a plan administrator's interpretation of a plan is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review the district court's application of this standard and the district court's ... summary judgment de novo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“help severely underfunded multiemployer pension plans recover.”
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.