How cited: Cluster 218623 · Go Syfert

Cluster 218623

green · 210 citation events across 15 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Quote Authority · D. Del.
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We also review the legal interpretation of contractual language de novo.”); Heasley v. Belden & Blake Corp., 2 F.3d 1249, 1254 (3d Cir. 1993).
“We also review the legal interpretation of contractual language de novo.”
Quote Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard the district court applied.”). 95 A fact that PSBA tacitly acknowledged by pleading “actual malice” in both its initial and amended complaints in the State Suit.
“We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard the district court applied.”
Quote Authority · D. Del.
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We also 7 MBIA filed a joinder to the Debtors’ answering brief.
“We also 7 MBIA filed a joinder to the Debtors’ answering brief. (D.I. 42). review the legal interpretation of contractual language de novo.”
Quote Authority · D. Del.
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We also review the legal interpretation of contractual language de novo.”); Heasley v. Belden & Blake Corp., 2 F.3d 1249, 1254 (3d Cir. 1993).
“We also review the legal interpretation of contractual language de novo.”
Quote Authority · W.D. Pa. · signal: see also
Co., 495 Pa. 348 , 433 A.2d 1342 , 1347 (1981) (citation omitted); see also Viera, 642 F.3d at 419 ("[T]he last-antecedent rule is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning.").
"[T]he last-antecedent rule is not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning."
Quote Authority · 4th Cir. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
Diaz, 424 F.3d at 637, 639 (“[E]very plan requires submission of documentary proof, and the administrator is entitled to insist on [one form of proof over *167 another].” (citations omitted)); see also Viera, 642 F.3d at 417 (“In other words, it is not clear whether ‘satisfactory to Us’ means ‘... proof of loss [in a form] satisfactory to Us’ or ‘... proof of loss [substantively and subjectively] satisfactory to Us.’ ”) (brackets in original); Gross, 734 F.3d at 15 , 2013 WL…
“In other words, it is not clear whether ‘satisfactory to Us’ means ‘... proof of loss [in a form] satisfactory to Us’ or ‘... proof of loss [substantively and subjectively] satisfactory to Us.’ ”
Quote Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am. , 642 F.3d 407 , 419-20 (3d Cir. 2011) ("Where there is only one reasonable interpretation of a contract, that interpretation controls because straightforward language in [a contract] should be given its natural meaning.") (internal citations omitted).
"Where there is only one reasonable interpretation of a contract, that interpretation controls because straightforward language in [a contract] should be given its natural meaning."
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Metro.
citing Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 111 (2008)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · M.D. Penn.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Hoover v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
quoting Hoover v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 801, 808-09 (6th Cir. 2002)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ohio
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 418 (3d Cir. 2011)) (“It is appropriate for the Court to consider the applicable standard of review at this juncture because whether discovery is permitted to explore defendants’ alleged bias is irrelevant if the standard of review is de novo.”).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 419 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003)).
quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003)
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 418 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 419-20 (3d Cir. 2011)) (citation omitted).
Rule Authority · W.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am. , 642 F.3d 407, 419-20 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Lawson v. Fortis Ins.
quoting Lawson v. Fortis Ins. Co. , 301 F.3d 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2002)
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011), and we apply the same standard of review that the District Court should have applied.
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011), and we apply the same standard of review that the District Court should have applied.
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · W.D. Pa.
Co of North America, 642 F. 3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011); Clauss v. Geisinger Health Plan, 196 F. Supp. 3d 463, 469 (M.D.
green FTX Trading, Ltd. v. (2024)
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 419 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing J.C.
citing J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. v. Pilosi, 393 F.3d 356, 365 (3d Cir. 2004)
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413-14 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[I]f we exercise de novo review, the role of the court ‘is to determine whether the administrator ... made a correct decision.’ ...
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 419 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 12th Street Gym, Inc., Robert Guzzardi v. General Star Indem.
quoting 12th Street Gym, Inc., Robert Guzzardi v. General Star Indem. Co., 93 F.3d 1158, 1165 (3d Cir. 1996)
Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 414 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust Funds, 944 F.2d 1176, 1180 (3d Cir. 1991)).
quoting Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust Funds, 944 F.2d 1176, 1180 (3d Cir. 1991)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 419 (3d Cir. 2011)). 74 Lomma, 788 F. App’x at 107 (quoting Madison Constr.
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 419 (3d Cir. 2011)).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011), we will affirm.
Rule Authority · W.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 419 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Lawson, 301 F.3d at 163 ).
quoting Lawson, 301 F.3d at 163
Rule Authority · W.D. Pa.
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 419-20 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Lawson v. Fortis Inc. Co., 301 F.3d 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2002)).
quoting Lawson v. Fortis Inc. Co., 301 F.3d 159, 162 (3d Cir. 2002)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 419 (3d Cir. 2011)). 61 McGeehan, 809 F. App’x at 78 (quoting Lawson v. Fortis Ins.
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413-14 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Hoover v. Provident Life and Accident Ins.
quoting Hoover v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 801, 809 (6th Cir. 2002)
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust Funds, 944 F.2d 1176, 1180 (3d Cir. 1991)).
citing Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust Funds, 944 F.2d 1176, 1180 (3d Cir. 1991)
Rule Authority · M.D. Penn.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Hoover v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
quoting Hoover v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 801, 808-09 (6th Cir. 2002)
Rule Authority · D.N.J. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (“if we exercise de novo review, the rofe of the court is to determine whether the administrator .. . made a correct decision.” (alteration in original))).
“if we exercise de novo review, the rofe of the court is to determine whether the administrator .. . made a correct decision.” (alteration in original)
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011) (stating that “the role of the court is to determine whether the administrator . . . made a correct decision”); C.E. v. Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield, No. 14-6950, 2017 WL 593492 , at *14 (D.N.J.
stating that “the role of the court is to determine whether the administrator . . . made a correct decision”
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion
In Viera v. Life Insurance Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407 (3d Cir. 2011), one of its leading cases on applying the appropriate standard of review in disability cases governed by ERISA, the Court of Appeals stated that in a posture of de novo review, a district court’s “determination may be based on any information before the administrator initially, as well as any supplemental evidence.” Id. at 418 (cleaned up).
cleaned up
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 4 citations in this opinion
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 414 (3d Cir. 2011).
green PESACOV v. UNUM (2020)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413-14 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotations, citations and alterations omitted).
internal quotations, citations and alterations omitted
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 418 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 414 (3d Cir. 2011) (footnote omitted).
footnote omitted
Rule Authority · D. Del.
Co. of North America, 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011); Heasley v. Belden & Blake Corp., 2 F.3d 1249, 1254 (3d Cir. 1993).