Halpin v. Ww Grainger Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
962 F.2d 685 · 1992
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 20 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 210 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc. (2003), Terry v. Bayer Corp. (1998)
90 federal appellate · 20 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States
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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The specific reason or reasons for the denial; (2) Specific reference to pertinent plan provisions on which the denial is based; (3) A description of any additional material or information necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of why such material or information is necessary; and (4) Appropriate information as to the steps to be taken if the participant or beneficiary wishes to submit his or her claim for review.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In accordance with regulations of the Secretary, every employee benefit plan shall— (1) provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant, and (2) afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ERISA requires that specific reasons for denial be communicated to the claimant and that the claimant be afforded an opportunity for 'full and fair review' by the administrator.”
9 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.