Ulvin v. Northwestern National Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
943 F.2d 862 · 1991
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2011
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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 Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw · Brown v. Schweitzer · Wilkerson v. Texas · Bormann v. AT & T Communications, Inc. · Anselmo v. Manufacturers Life Insurance
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Keeping these purposes [of the filing requirement] in mind, there must be some limit to what claims an opt-in party can raise when relying on the administrative filing of another. Certainly, when the filed charge is quite specific as to the scope of the class claim it raises, opt-in plaintiffs should not be permitted to raise claims that are far outside of that scope. Otherwise, the purposes of requiring an administrative filing would be thwarted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Carlson was a vice president in Washington Square Capital’s Real Estate Department when he signed the termination agreement. The district court observed that Carlson had access to the agreement for a considerable amount of time, that he chose not to consult an attorney, and that he was able to negotiate the addition of favorable terms to the agreement. Slip op. at 10. The court also stated that the agreement was written in clear, simple language, that it granted Carlson severance benefits in excess of those required by contract or statute, and that Carlson decided to sign the agreement of his own free will. Id. Appellants point to no specific facts about which there is a material dispute, and we reject their general argument. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Clinton Carlson from Ulvin’s class action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are aware that the Senate Report for the 1990 amendments disapproved this court’s approach in Lancaster . Congress is fully capable of enacting legislation that will limit or change a rule announced by a court, but it did not do so in this case and its comments do not provide a sufficient basis for this court to refuse to follow our earlier precedent.”
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.