Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 877 F.2d 769 - Board of Trustees of Mill Cabinet Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Valley Cabinet & Mfg Co B J

Board of Trustees of Mill Cabinet Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Valley Cabinet & Mfg Co B J’s Empirical Analysis

877 F.2d 769 · 1989

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably No. 92-15749 (1995), National Labor Relations Board v. Greater Kansas City Roofing (1993)

8 federal appellate · 6 district ·

1701989199020002010decided

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. § 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. § 1399 (§ 4219 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1451 (§ 4301 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Town of North Bonneville v. United States · Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co. · Seymour v. Hull & Moreland Engineering · Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Gilliam · Audit Services, Inc. v. Rolfson

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

  1. “Garden variety fraud should be insufficient to pierce the corporate veil in the absence of evidence of shareholder abuse of the corporate form to defraud creditors.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the amount of respect given to the separate identity of the corporation by its shareholders, the degree of injustice visited on the litigants by recognition of the corporate entity, and the fraudulent intent of the incorporators.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “inability to collect [upon a judgment] does not, by itself, constitute an inequitable result.”
    3 later decisions 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.