Mertens v. Hewitt Associates’s Empirical Analysis
948 F.2d 607 · 1991
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Mertens v. Hewitt Associates (1993), Kyle Railways, Inc. v. Pacific Administration Services, Inc. (1993)
16 federal appellate · 5 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 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. § 1342 (§ 4042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp. · 44 Cal. 3d 1103 - Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) ... exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) ... renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of , such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (in) ... has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) in the case of— (A) any breach of fiduciary responsibility under (or other violation of) part 4 by a fiduciary, or (B) any knowing participation in such a breach or violation by any other persons, the Secretary shall assess a civil penally against such a fiduciary or other person in an amount equal to 20 percent of the applicable recovery amount....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiffs, however, have provided no authority that supports this theory. Moreover, to accept the plaintiffs' argument would be to obliterate the already blurry distinction between restitution and damages at law. Given that ERISA explicitly limits claims pursuant to subsection (a)(3) to claims for equitable relief, such an expansion would appear contrary to the spirit of the statute. See Nieto, 845 F.2d at 873 (permitting recovery of damages under subsection (a)(3) would render subsection (a)(2) superfluous,”
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.