Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 1,535 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Anchor | green | “a law 'relates to' an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” | 590 |
| 2 | Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. | green | “some state actions may affect employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law 'relates to' the plan.” | 276 |
| 3 | Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. | green | “erisa is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.” | 213 |
| 4 | New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance | green | “we simply must go beyond the unhelpful text and the frustrating difficulty of defining its key term, and look instead to the objectives of the erisa statute as a guide to the scope of the state law that congress understood would survive.” | 128 |
| 5 | New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance | green | “for all practical purposes pre-emption would never run its course.” | 101 |
| 6 | Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon | green | “a state law may 'relate to' a benefit plan, and thereby be pre-empted, even if the law is not specifically designed to affect such plans, or the effect is only indirect.” | 89 |
| 7 | MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. | green | “lawsuits against erisa plans for run-of-the-mill state-law claims such as unpaid rent, failure to pay creditors, or even torts committed by an erisa plan” | 59 |
| 8 | Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. | green | “establish pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern.” | 46 |
| 9 | Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Francisco L. Borges, Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, and State of Connecticut | green | “what triggers erisa preemption is not just any indirect effect on administrative procedures but rather an effect on the primary administrative functions of benefit plans, such as determining an employee's eligibility for a benefit and the amount of that benefit.” | 22 |
| 10 | Painters of Philadelphia District Council No. 21 Welfare Fund v. Price Waterhouse | green | “erisa does not generally preempt state professional malpractice actions” | 5 |
| 11 | Dennis Fitzgerald v. Codex Corporation | green | “in addition to comprehensively regulating certain employees welfare benefit plans, erisa specifically preempts most state laws that 'relate to' plans covered under erisa.” | 3 |
| 12 | Dennis Fitzgerald v. Codex Corporation | green | “so pervasively regulated by federal law is that of employment retirement benefits.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.