Raymond Ja Ad v. Mobil Oil Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
983 F.2d 1528 · 1993
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably Vartanian v. Monsanto Co. (1994), Maez v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph, Inc. (1995)
24 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 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 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]ormer employees who had received the full extent of their vested benefits [do] not have the right to sue under ERISA for additional benefits that they might have received but for the wrongful conduct of their employers. This is because where a former employee has received all benefits entitled to him under his plan ..., he has no colorable claim that additional benefits have vested or will vest.... [He] therefore seek[s] a damage award, not vested benefits improperly withheld.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Christopher court’s “but for” standing analysis — “but for the employer’s conduct alleged to be in violation of ERISA, the employee would be a current employee with a reasonable expectation of receiving benefits” — amounts to the kind of analysis rejected by the Supreme Court in Firestone: “[t]o say that a ‘participant’ is any person who claims to be one begs the question of who is a ‘participant’ and renders the definition set forth in § 1002(7) superfluous.” To say that but for Mobil’s conduct, plaintiffs would have standing is to admit that they lack standing and to allow those who merely claim to be participants to be deemed as such.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f an employee is a participant at the time of the alleged ERISA violation and alleges that he was discharged or discriminated against because of the protected whistleblowing activities, we hold that such an employee has standing to sue under ERISA.”
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.