Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 889 F.2d 115 - Nichol v. Pullman Standard, Inc.

Nichol v. Pullman Standard, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

889 F.2d 115 · 1989

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
2
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably McCoy v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1991), Little v. Cox's Supermarkets (1995)

36 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

39019891990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. · Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the degree of the offending parties' culpability or bad faith; (2) the degree of the ability of the offending parties to satisfy personally an award of attorneys' fees; (3) whether or not an award of attorneys' fees against the offending parties would deter other persons acting under similar circumstances; (4) the amount of benefit conferred on members of the pension plan as a whole; and (5) the relative merits of the parties' positions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n any action under this subchapter ... by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of action to either party.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[B]oth tests are designed to award costs and fees to the prevailing party where there is reason to believe that the losing party engaged in litigation merely to harass its opponent.”
    2 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.