Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund’s Empirical Analysis
881 F.2d 11 · 1989
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2018
5 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 1381 (§ 4201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 4203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1385 (§ 4205 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. § 1401 (§ 4221 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1461 (§ 4402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. RA Gray & Co. · Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Moody v. Empire Life Insurance · Republic Industries, Inc. v. Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund · Flying Tiger Line v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress’ response to the growing problem of financial insolvency of multiemployer pension plans caused by the withdrawal of contributors, and was aimed at protecting the financial integrity of these plans by requiring that withdrawing employers pay a withdrawal liability sum. An employer is deemed to have “completely withdrawn” from a plan when it either “(1) permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute under the plan, or (2) permanently ceases all covered operations under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (a). The withdrawing employer is liable to the plan for its allocable share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381 , 1391. Provisions for the quick and informal resolution of withdrawal liability disputes are an integral part of MPPAA’s statutory scheme. Thus, the statute provides that “[a]s soon as practicable after an employer’s complete or partial withdrawal,” the plan is required to determine the amount of withdrawal liability, notify the employer of its assessment, and demand payment. 29 U.S.C. § 1399 (b)(1).... If the employer [is] dissatisfied with the plan's determination, MPPAA provides for the resolution of the dispute through arbitration____ If arbitration is not initiated within the specified time period, the amount demanded by the plan “shall be due and owing.” 29 U.S.C. § 1401 (b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“undoubtedly benefit from the special knowledge and expertise of a skilled labor and pension law arbitrator.” 881 F.2d 11 , 19 (3d Cir.1989) (citing Grand Union Co. v. Food Employers Labor Relations Assn, 808 F.2d 66 , 70 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1987)). The court further stated that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'permanently cease[d] all covered operations under the plan' pursuant to 1383(a)(2) ... is best characterized as a mixed factual and legal one”
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.