Electro-Mechanical Corp. v. Ogan’s Empirical Analysis
9 F.3d 445 · 1993
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Griggs v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. (2001), Krohn v. Huron Memorial Hospital (1999)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1022 (§ 102 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. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne · Fmc Corporation v. Holliday
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xcept as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]xcept as provided in subparagraph (B), nothing in this chapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The pre-emption clause is conspicuous for its breadth. It establishes as an area of exclusive federal concern the subject of eveiy state law that “relate[s] to” an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. The saving clause returns to the States the power to enforce those state laws that “regulat[e] insurance,” except as provided in the deemer clause. Under the deemer clause, an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA shall not be “deemed” an insurance company, an insurer, or engaged in the business of insurance for purposes of state laws “purporting to regulate” insurance companies and insurance contracts.”
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.