Waxman v. Luna’s Empirical Analysis
881 F.2d 237 · 1989
Citation profile
58 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Kline v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1997), Yeager v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance (1996)
58 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. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 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)
Relies on Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · United Mine Workers, Local No. 1854 v. National Labor Relations Board · Wardle v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund · Short v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Conclusions of law are ... subject to de novo review”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whenever the trial court arrives at its conclusion by application of statutory law to the facts, such holding becomes a conclusion of law reviewable under the de novo standard”
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.