Plotnick v. Computer Sciences Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.3d 160 · 2017
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Barbara Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated Associates Health and Welfare Plan Barbara a Booth · Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan · Goldstein v. Johnson & Johnson · Williams v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(Because, on the facts presented here, we agree that the competing standards of review present a distinction without a difference, we decline to decide which standard of review applies.... Whether we proceed under a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“inquiry, an abuse-of-discretion standard, or even de novo review, we agree that the 2012 Amendment and CSC's denial of benefits were valid.”
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.