Hurwitz v. Sher’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 778 · 1992
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Moore v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (1993), Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local No. 9 (1993)
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 417 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (§ 205 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. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the spouse of the participant consents in writing to such election, (ii) such election designates a beneficiary (or a form of benefits) which may not be changed without spousal consent (or the consent of the spouse expressly permits designations by the participant without any requirement of further consent by the spouse), and (iii) the spouse’s consent acknowledges the effect of such election and is witnessed by a plan representative or a notary public[.] 2”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e cannot say that just because Congress intended to protect spouses who have been longterm partners, it meant to permit the casual disenfranchisement of newly-weds. As no legislative intent can be discerned to exclude such spouses from the clear provisions of the statute, we will not exempt them by fiat.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to ensure that a participant's spouse receives survivor benefits”
2 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.