Canseco v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust’s Empirical Analysis
93 F.3d 600 · 1996
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Williams v. International Paper Co. (2000), Chambers v. Family Health Plan Corp. (1996)
25 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · Stewart v. Brown · Johnson v. Texas
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Although Section 5.01 requires an eligible employee to submit an application to begin receiving benefit payments, it does not require an application as a condition of eligibility. On the contrary, Section 5.01 refers to employees who already ‘meet [ ] the conditions of eligibility[,] .... By referring to eligible employees, Section 5.01 clearly contemplates that an employee will already have satisfied the conditions of eligibility before applying for payments to begin.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By retroactively denying benefits to a class of workers who have indisputably earned them, the Trustees have, in effect, imposed on those workers an additional requirement of eligibility: the submission of an application for benefits. We reject such an additional requirement as inconsistent with the terms of the CLPT plan, since nothing in the CLPT plan makes an application a prerequisite for eligibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... 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 majoritye.g. Smith v. Nfl
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.