Arnold v. Arrow Transportation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
926 F.2d 782 · 1991
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co. (1995), Charles McDaniel v. The Chevron Corporation (2000)
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1022 (§ 102 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. § 1341 (§ 4041 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co. · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co. · Hugh Edwards v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A [SPD], therefore, cannot violate ERISA merely because it could have included language more specifically discussing the precise situation of a particular beneficiary. The [SPD], instead, should provide information about the general circumstances in which benefits could be lost. The plan’s rules should be explained to permit the ordinary employee to recognize that certain events or actions could trigger a loss of benefits. It need not discuss every imaginable situation in which such events or actions might occur, but it must be specific enough to enable the ordinary employee to sense when there is a danger that benefits could be lost or diminished.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Benefits under this plan are insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) if the plan terminates. Generally, the PBGC guarantees most Vested Normal Age Retirement Benefits, Early Retirement Benefits, and certain disability and survivor’s pensions. However, PBGC does not guarantee all types of benefits under covered Plans, and the amount of benefit protection is subject to certain limitations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits.”
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.