Atkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The provision of ERISA on which the plaintiff primarily relies, section 203(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (a), provides that “an employee’s right to his normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable upon the attainment of normal retirement age.” That provision has no possible application here, because nothing in the plan forfeits retirement benefits when the employee reaches the normal retirement age. Lunn could have retired at age 65 with the normal retirement benefit. Another provision of ERISA may be relevant: section 204(b)(l)(H)(i), 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (b)(1)(H)®, added to ERISA by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, forbids reducing “the rate of an employee’s benefit accrual ... because of the attainment of any age.” Wards could not say to Lunn, if you insist on working after you reach the age of 65, we’re going to cut down your normal retirement benefits. But Wards did not say (or do) that. Lunn remained in the retirement plan(s), accruing benefits in exactly the same way he had been doing before he turned 65, until he retired. He was treated the same as all other workers; there was no forfeiture.... % H5 # $ ‡ Lunn’s position has an even more radical implication, though he does not draw it: that all defined benefit plans violate section 203(a). The longer a worker works after normal retirement age, the less likely the increase in his benefits as a result of additional years of service is to offset the loss in expected benefits as a result of reduced life expectancy. Supp”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 78 F. Supp. 2d 647 - Monks v. Keystone Powdered Metal Co. · Lunn v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

2. “A right to an accrued benefit derived from employer contributions shall not be treated as forfeitable solely because the plan provides that the payment of benefits is suspended for such period as the employee is employed, subsequent to the commencement of payment of such benefits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 78 F. Supp. 2d 647 - Monks v. Keystone Powdered Metal Co.

3. “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James F. Anderson Dorothy J. Anderson v. Farmers Home Administration Robert J. Maag Steve Magedanz Tim Potts Thomas A. Lloyd