Giardono v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
867 F.2d 409 · 1989
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2004 · most notably Raymond B. Yates, MD, PC Profit Sharing Plan v. Hendon (2004), Olympia Hotels Corp. v. Johnson Wax Development Corp. (1990)
37 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 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 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. § 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Pierce v. Underwood · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Plans without employees. For purposes of title I of the Act and this chapter, the term “employee benefit plan” shall not include any plan, fund or program, other than an apprenticeship or other training program, under which no employees are participants covered under the plan, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section. For example, a so-called “Keogh” or “H.R. 10” plan under which only partners or only a sole proprietor are participants covered under the plan will not be covered under title I. However, a Keogh plan under which one or more common law employees, in addition to the self-employed individuals, are participants covered under the plan, will be covered under title I. (c) Employees. For purposes of this section: (1) An individual and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees with respect to a trade or business, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which is wholly owned by the individual or by the individual and his or her spouse.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is a fundamental requirement of ERISA that `. . . the assets of a plan shall never inure to the benefit of any employer . . . .'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he subject matter jurisdiction in § 1132(e)(1) is exclusive. The courts are without the power to expand their jurisdiction under ERISA in order to imply a cause of action for non-enumerated parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.