Joe Rodger Newell, Jr., Individually and as Natural Parent and Guardian of Minor Joe Rodger Newell, Iii. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America’s Empirical Analysis
904 F.2d 644 · 1990
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust Funds (1991), Jim L. Woolsey v. Marion Laboratories, Inc. Marion Laboratories, Inc., Profit Sharing Plan (1991)
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1108 (§ 408 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 · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Delaware v. New York · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“facto[r] in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“crafted a new, more stringent standard of review when a conflict of interest has been shown to exist on the part of the fiduciary rendering benefits decisions....” Newell v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 904 F.2d 644, 651 (11th Cir.1990). A conflict of interest exists when a plan administrator”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A civE action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary ... 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.”
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.