Speciale v. Seybold’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) terms, Musinski’s claim may perhaps not be one “to recover benefits,” and perhaps he might not be characterized as resisting Blue Cross’ effort to enforce its rights under the Plan rather than seeking to enforce his own, but it is surely the case that in the language Rice adapted from Lingle , the “resolution of the [plaintiffs] state law claim ... require[s] construing [the ERISA plan.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hartenbower v. Dent
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.