First National Life Insurance Company v. Sunshine-Jr Food Stores Inc First National Life Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
960 F.2d 1546 · 1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. (1996), Louis Juliano v. The Health Maintenance Organization of New Jersey Inc US Healthcare (2000)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Restitution is an equitable remedy designed to restore to a plaintiff something of value that is wrongfully in the possession of another.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[w]e must reject the argument that these claims do not 'relate to' the employee benefit plan. Congress used the words ‘relates to’ in their broad sense and did not mean to preempt only state laws specifically designed to affect employee benefit plans.... A state law relates to an employee benefit plan if it 'has a connection with or reference to such a plan'.... [Sjtate contract and tort laws that impose varying standards upon the administrator of a welfare benefit plan create a significant potential conflict with ERISA and thus are logically preempted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Nor is the argument that ERISA provides an inadequate remedy a sufficient reason to overcome the application of § 1144(a). The question of preemption is a matter of congressional intent; it is not a question of which body of law-state or federal-offers more protection to an aggrieved party. Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464, 1470 (11th Cir.1986) (“To argue that Congress created a ‘gap’ in the law does not undermine the reasoning on which a finding of preemption is based.”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.