Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 874 F.2d 496 - Gunderson v. W.R. Grace & Co. Long Term Disability Income Plan

Gunderson v. W.R. Grace & Co. Long Term Disability Income Plan’s Empirical Analysis

874 F.2d 496 · 1989

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Brown v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. (1990), Jett v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. (1989)

29 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

40019891990200020102020decided

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. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Heckler v. Campbell · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo · Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. · Landro v. Glendenning Motorways, Inc.

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a] prevailing plan beneficiary or participant 'should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1.16 "Rehabilitative Employment" — any occupation or employment for wage or profit for which the Employee is reasonably fitted by training, education or experience or may reasonably become qualified based on his training, education and experience, provided such Rehabilitative Employment is performed during a period in which the Covered Employee is unable to fully perform the duties of his regular occupation. Rehabilitative Employment shall be a status that may be granted by the Corporation. The Corporation may consider an Employee on Rehabilitative Employment for a limited period not to exceed 3 months in duration. The Corporation may renew a status of Rehabilitative Employment but not for more than 3 months at a time. In no event shall the aggregate duration of an Employee’s Rehabilitative Employment exceed 12 months for all disability due to the same or related causes.”
    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.