Olson’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Thomas Head Greisen Employees Trust v. Buster D (1994), Malan Johnston Paul Revere Life Insurance Company Now Known As Provident Insurance Company (2001)
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · California v. ARC America Corp. · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Smithson v. United States · Reves v. Ernst & Young
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he 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) he 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 (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan. Such term includes any person designated under section 1105(c)(1)(B) of this title.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person shall be deemed to be rendering “investment advice” to an employee benefit plan ... only if: (i) Such person renders advice to the plan as to the value of securities or other property, or makes recommendations as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities or other property, and (ii) Such person either directly or indirectly ifi.g., through or together with any affiliate)— (A) Has discretionary authority or control, whether or not pursuant to agreement, arrangement or understanding, with respect to purchasing or selling securities or other property for the plan; or (B) Renders any advice described [above] on a regular basis to the plan pursuant to a mutual agreement, arrangement or understanding, written or otherwise, between such person and the plan or a fiduciary with respect to the plan, that such services will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions with respect to plan assets, and that sueh person will render individualized investment advice to the plan based on the particular needs of the plan regarding such matters as, among other things, investment policies or strategy, overall portfolio composition, or diversification of plan investments.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n agreement or understanding must have existed between the parties, not necessarily that [the defendant] would serve as a fiduciary, but that [he] would provide to the Plan individualized investment advice which would be the primary basis for the Plan's investment decisions.”
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.