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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 18 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 California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A. Anchor | green | “the existence of erisa plans is essential to the law's operation.” | 7 |
| 2 | Standard Oil Company of California v. Joshua C. Agsalud | green | “directly and expressly regulated employers and the type of benefits they provide employees,” | 4 |
| 3 | Standard Oil Co. of California v. Agsalud | green | “certain reporting requirements which differed from those of erisa.” | 4 |
| 4 | John W. Dishman v. Unum Life Insurance Company Of America | green | “holistic analysis guided by congressional intent.” | 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.