Scarbrough v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
870 F.2d 1079 · 1989
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Levit Vn v. Ingersoll Rand Financial Corporation (1989), Madonia v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Virginia (1993)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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. § 1145 (§ 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1301 (§ 4001 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 4201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1405 (§ 4225 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 203
Relies on Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co. · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Fisher v. City of Berkeley · Donovan v. Agnew
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here a court is without justification for piercing the veil separating a corporate employer from its owner-chief executive, the owner-executive may not be held personally answerable for the corporation's delinquent contributions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan; and includes a group or association of employers acting for an employer in such capacity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court did not set forth its rationale for determining that there was no just reason for delay and for directing the entry of an immediately appealable judgment as to only”
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.