Jacobs v. Pickands Mather & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
933 F.2d 652 · 1991
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Lutheran Medical Center of Omaha Nebraska v. Contractors Laborers Teamsters and Engineers Health and Welfare Plan (1994), Martin v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield (2002)
14 federal appellate · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Iron Workers Local # 272 v. Bowen · Perry v. Simplicity Engineering, a Division of Lukens General Industries, Inc. · Short v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the degree of the opposing parties’s culpability or bad faith; (2) the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees; (3) whether an award of attorney’s fees against the opposing parties could deter other persons acting under similar circumstances; (4) whether the parties requesting attorney’s fees sought to benefit all participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan or to resolve a significant legal question regarding ERISA itself; and (5) the relative merits of the parties’ positions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we must begin by examining the language of the plan document. Each provision should be read consistently with the others and the terms must be construed to render none of them nugatory.”
2 later decisions 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.