Krawczyk v. Harnischfeger Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1024 (§ 104 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. § 1133 (§ 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), retirement benefits were calculated according to a formula that considered age at retirement, years of service, and the average compensation of the highest consecutive five full calendar years (out of the last ten) of employment. Because the plan only counted the highest five full calendar years of service, plaintiff was not entitled to count his last year (which was his highest salary year) because his last day of paid employment was December 14, 1983. 1 Out of considerations of fairness, however, defendants allowed the plaintiff to use a portion of the severance payment to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was reasonable, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment. I. 2 Plaintiff (Elvin) began work for Harnischfeger in 1941. He was working in Harnischfeger's Escanaba, Michigan plant as a salaried employee in 1983 when he was told that he was being laid off and that the plant would be closed. At the time, plaintiff and other select employees were offered special termination benefits. Plaintiff elected to receive a lump-sum severance benefit of $20,000. 3 Under Harnischfeger's salaried employees retirement 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.