Williams v. Caterpillar, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
944 F.2d 658 · 1991
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Rodriguez-Abreu v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (1993), Watkins v. Westinghouse Hanford Company (1994)
39 federal appellate · 8 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 1011 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1024 (§ 104 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 202 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (§ 204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n any action under [ERISA] ... the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of action to either party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is limited to relief protecting the integrity of the plan as a whole and does not extend to individual plan participants.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sol F. Marx Harry F. Crooks and Dallas D. Hann v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, an Arizona Corporation, Sol F. Marx Harry F. Crooks and Dallas D. Hann, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, an Arizona Corporation · Marx“a fiduciary's duty under ERISA runs to the plan as a whole and not to the individual beneficiary.”
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.