Barnett v. Petro-Tex Chemical Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.2d 800 · 1990
Citation profile
33 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Porzig v. Nolden · Wrenn v. Ohio Department of Mental Health
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that a denial of benefits challenged under Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“each case is controlled by the language of a policy or agreement and ... it is not universally accepted that a period of unemployment is a prerequisite for entitlement to termination pay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Seal v. Knorpp“'utterly fails to provide' notice to the court and opposing party of the identity of the appellant or appellants.”
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.