Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
970 F.2d 1138 · 1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co Harris Trust and Savings Bank Sperry Master Retirement Trust No (1993), 17 F. Supp. 2d 275 - Granite Partners, LP v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. (1998)
6 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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 Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Griffin v. Hilke · Alford v. United States · Carter v. Nesby · Carter v. Nesby
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The pension trustees did not buy an insurance contract with a fixed payout; they turned over the assets of the pension plan to [the insurer] to manage with full investment discretion, subject only to a modest income guaranty. If the pension plan had hired an investment advisor and given him authority to buy and sell securities at his discretion for the plan's account, the advisor would be a fiduciary within the meaning of [ERISA], and that is essentially what the trustees did during the accumulation phase of th[is] contract . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well-settled in this circuit that a vacated order has no collateral estoppel effect. We have held that it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to refuse to enter a vacatur pursuant to a settlement providing that the vacated order would not have collateral estoppel effect in any subsequent action. Nestle Co. v. Chester’s Mkt., Inc., 756 F.2d 280, 282 (2d Cir.1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGoldrick v. Hunt“If Sperry failed to maintain Fund balances at or above MOL, termination of the PAF would be triggered.”). The court finds that the government's interpretation of the Harris Trust district court opinion, which is ambiguous on this point, is inconsistent with the evidence and the circuit decision, and does not create a disputed issue of material fact. 11 . The blanket term”
1 later decision 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.