Ramirez v. Inter-Continental Hotels’s Empirical Analysis
890 F.2d 760 · 1989
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Hansen v. Continental Insurance (1991), Memorial Hospital System v. Northbrook Life Insurance (1990)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
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 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 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. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 1132. Civil enforcement (a) Persons empowered to bring a civil action A civil action may be brought— (1) by a participant or beneficiary— * * * * * * * * (B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Article 21.21] does not transfer or spread policyholder risk, and ... “does not define the terms of the relationship between the insurer and the insured; it declares only that, whatever terms have been agreed upon in the insurance contract, a breach of that contract” may in some cases entitle the policyholder to exemplary damages. At most, therefore, [Article 21.21] satisfies one of three criteria used to interpret the phrase “regulates insurance” in the ERISA savings clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ramirez’s efforts to collect his medical benefits “relate to an employee benefit plan” and thus come within the scope of ERISA’s express preemption provision § 514(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a), which declares that ERISA “supersede^] any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan ...””
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.