Kurz’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Burstein Md, Cetel
1 federal appellate · 13 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.
Relationships
Relies on Tiller v. NCNB Bank · Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League · City of El Centro v. United States · Shibuya v. Voss · Department of Revenue of Montana v. Ranch
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation, or (B) in the case of an omission, the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or (2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation; except that in the case of fraud or concealment, such action may be commenced not later than six years after the date of discovery of such breach or violation.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Section 1113]’s ‘fraud and [sic] concealment’ language applies the federal common law discovery rule to ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims. In other words, when a lawsuit has been delayed because the defendant itself has taken steps to hide its breach of fiduciary duty, ... the limitations period will run six years after the date of the claim’s discovery. The relevant question is therefore not whether the complaint ‘sounds in concealment,’ but rather whether there is evidence that the defendant took affirmative steps to hide its breach of fiduciary duty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we have consistently rejected estoppel claims based on simple ERISA reporting errors or disclosure violations, such as a variation between a plan summary and the plan itself, or an omission in the disclosure documents.”
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.