← 952 F.2d 1450 - Block v. Pitney Bowes Inc.

Block v. Pitney Bowes Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

952 F.2d 1450 · 1992

Citation profile

128

cited by 128 later decisions

states following

March 2019

most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 43 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Wildbur v. Arco Chemical Co. (1992), Perez v. Aetna Life Insurance (1998)

49 federal appellate · 43 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 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 403 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Helvering v. Gowran · Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc. · Hudson v. Palmer · United States v. Security Industrial Bank

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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“'[t]he Court in Firestone ... did not suggest that "discretionary authority”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Brown v. National City Corp. · 898 F. Supp. 667 - Taylor v. KAWNEER CO. COMP. MED. EXPENSE PLAN
“... power “ 'to interpret and construe the Plan, [and] to determine all questions of eligibility and the status and rights of the Participants,1 ” and providing that "all decisions of the administrator ’shall, to the extent not inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, be final and conclusive and binding upon all persons having an interest in the Plan.’ "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 17 F. Supp. 2d 69 - Tavares v. Unum Corp. · Sandy v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
“a denial of benefits challenged under [section 502 of ERISA] is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator ... discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Francis v. Rodman Local Union 201 Pension Fund · Communications Workers v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

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.