Wengert v. Rajendran’s Empirical Analysis
886 F.3d 725 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 · Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk · 131 S. Ct. 1866 - CIGNA Corp. v. Amara · De Nobel · Finley v. Special Agents Mutual Benefit Ass'n, 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether their interpretation is consistent with the goals of the Plan, whether their interpretation renders any language in the Plan meaningless or internally inconsistent, whether their interpretation conflicts with the substantive or procedural requirements of the ERISA statute, whether they have interpreted the words at issue consistently, and whether their interpretation is contrary to the clear language of the Plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where an ERISA plan grants the administrator discretion ... to interpret the plan's terms, courts must apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review.”
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.