Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 913 F.2d 310 - McMillan v. Parrott

McMillan v. Parrott’s Empirical Analysis

913 F.2d 310 · 1990

Citation profile

132
cited by 132 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 9 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 132 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan (2009), Todd v. AIG Life Insurance (1995)

45 federal appellate · 9 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 13 states

7601990200020102020decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 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) · 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 · Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Whitworth Bros. Storage Co. · Berlin v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. · Fox Valley & Vicinity Construction Workers Pension Fund v. Brown

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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Nancye Callahan v. Hutsell, Callahan & Buchino P.S.C. Revised Profit Sharing Plan, Courtney Callahan · 21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1745, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23937w Maria Mattei v. Ronald Mattei, Individually and as for the Estate of Louis J. Mattei Mary Laura Mattei
  2. “The designation of beneficiaries plainly relates to these ERISA plans, and we see no reason to apply state law on this issue.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 67 F. Supp. 2d 413 - John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Timbo · 48 F. Supp. 2d 26 - Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Madole
  3. “clear statutory command, together with the plan provisions, answer the question; the documents control,”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 848 F. Supp. 1326 - Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Pearson · Riordan v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

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.