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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 251 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 Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila Anchor | green | “the purpose of erisa is to provide a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans.” | 117 |
| 2 | California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A. | green | “look both to the objectives of the erisa statute as a guide to the scope of the state law that congress understood would survive, as well as to the nature of the effect of the state law on erisa plans.” | 59 |
| 3 | California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A. | green | “the existence of erisa plans is essential to the law's operation.” | 58 |
| 4 | District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade | green | “measured by reference to 'the existing health insurance coverage' provided by the employer,” | 8 |
| 5 | Standard Oil Co. of California v. Agsalud | green | “certain reporting requirements which differed from those of erisa.” | 5 |
| 6 | Standard Oil Company of California v. Joshua C. Agsalud | green | “directly and expressly regulated employers and the type of benefits they provide employees,” | 4 |
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.