Kunsman v. Conkright’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1022 (§ 102 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 401 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (§ 413 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 414 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Baker v. Carr · Wilson v. Garcia · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Second Circuit has made clear that “the details of the phantom account offset functions were set out in-full in The 1998 Summary Plan . Description (‘SPD’),” Frommert, 433 F.3d at 260 , and that “the phantom account was fully explained” in that SPD, id. at 262 . The court went on to state that “the 1998 SPD amended the text of the Plan to include the phantom account and comparative methodology by fully setting out how they are used to calculate rehired employees’ benefits,” and that “the 1998 SPD adequately describes the offset procedure.” Id. at 268-69 . From 1998 onwards, then, the phantom account has been a part of the Plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Testa v. Becker“This Court stated in Kunsman that plaintiffs could not have foreseen ... that defendants would ignore the directives of the Second Circuit, and continue to apply the phantom account to Xerox retirees, after the issuance of the Frommert decision in 2006. In my view, that provides a sufficient basis for a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, based on defendants’ alleged breach of their duty to discharge their duties “solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Testa v. Becker
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.