3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 20 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 Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. Breiner.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. Breiner Anchor | green | “to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.” | 9 |
| 2 | Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. Breiner | green | “uniformity is impossible, however, if plans are subject to different legal obligations in different states.” | 8 |
| 3 | Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Mildred Johnson v. Lashanda Smith, Leonard Smith and Carolyn Hall | green | “egelhoff stands for the proposition that a state law cannot invalidate an erisa plan beneficiary designation by mandating distribution to another person.” | 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.