Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Jordan’s Empirical Analysis
873 F.2d 149 · 1989
Citation profile
26 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2005 · most notably Lumpkin v. Envirodyne Industries, Inc. (1991), Gordon B. Phillips, as Guardian of James G. Phillips v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation (1993)
26 federal appellate ·
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. § 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)) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Wilson v. Garcia · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Occidental Life Insurance Company of California v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ummary judgment should be granted only when no genuine issues of material fact exist and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The overriding policy consideration in this case is the integrity of the Pension Fund and its ability to pay its beneficiaries. The Pension Fund must rely on self-reporting by employers. It may take time for the Pension Fund to discover irregularities in employer contributions. Characterizing this action as an action on a written contract contributes to the stability of pension funds and will encourage employers to meet their obligations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“characterize the essence of the claim in the pending case, and decide which state statute provides the most appropriate limiting principle.”
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.