Sutter v. BASF Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
964 F.2d 556 · 1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2010
6 federal appellate · 1 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 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Crisp v. Rubin · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Webster v. Reproductive Health Services · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Detroit
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A company's reason for treating a class of beneficiaries differently is not always readily ascertainable. For this reason, a court should be hesitant to substitute its judgment for that of the company.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. 22 Employee Benefits Cas. 1817, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23946t Glen H. Sengpiel, Donald E. Kelly, and Donald R. Gottschalk v. The B.F. Goodrich Company, the B.F. Goodrich Pension Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Life Insurance Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Hospital-Surgical Medical Basic Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Prescription Drug Benefit Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Major Medical Plan, Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company, Uniroyal Goodrich Pension Plan, the Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company Health Care Plan, the Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company Prescription Drug Plan, the Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company Life Insurance Plan, and Michelin North America, Inc. · Sengpiel v. B.F. Goodrich Co.“a company does not act in a fiduciary capacity when deciding to amend or terminate a welfare benefits plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. 22 Employee Benefits Cas. 1817, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23946t Glen H. Sengpiel, Donald E. Kelly, and Donald R. Gottschalk v. The B.F. Goodrich Company, the B.F. Goodrich Pension Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Life Insurance Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Hospital-Surgical Medical Basic Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Prescription Drug Benefit Plan, the B.F. Goodrich Major Medical Plan, Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company, Uniroyal Goodrich Pension Plan, the Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company Health Care Plan, the Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company Prescription Drug Plan, the Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company Life Insurance Plan, and Michelin North America, Inc. · Sengpiel v. B.F. Goodrich Co.“BASF’s decision to merge the two plans in 1961 clearly constituted the establishment or amendment of a Pension Plan and is therefore a business decision that should not be overturned by the court in the absence of violation of state or federal law.”
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.