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.
16 canonical passages across 12 cases, quoted by 2,919 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 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch Anchor | green | “unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” | 1,699 |
| 2 | Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch | green | “if a benefit plan gives discretion to an administrator or fiduciary who is operating under a conflict of interest, that conflict must be weighed as a 'factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.” | 390 |
| 3 | Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord | green | “plan administrators, of course, may not arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimant's reliable evidence, including the opinions of a treating physician.” | 208 |
| 4 | Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord | green | “courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimant's physician; nor may courts impose on plan administrators a discrete burden of explanation when they credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating phys…” | 177 |
| 5 | Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn | green | “should prove less important (perhaps to the vanishing point) where the administrator has taken active steps to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy.” | 129 |
| 6 | Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord | green | “plan administrators are not obliged to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians.” | 109 |
| 7 | Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn | green | “should prove more important (perhaps of great importance) where circumstances suggest a higher likelihood that it affected the benefits decision, including, but not limited to, cases where an insurance company administrator has a history of biased claims administration.” | 83 |
| 8 | Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc. | green | “an inference based upon a speculation or conjecture does not create a material factual dispute sufficient to defeat entry of summary judgment.” | 60 |
| 9 | Donald F. Bogue v. Ampex Corporation and Allied-Signal, Inc. Does 1-10, Inclusive | green | “includes even one important discretionary element, and the power to apply that element is unambiguously retained by its administrator.” | 15 |
| 10 | Horan v. Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan | green | “is not arbitrary unless it is 'not grounded on any reasonable basis.” | 10 |
| 11 | Nazay v. Miller | green | “incentives to avoid the loss of morale and higher wage demands that could result from denials of benefits,” | 10 |
| 12 | Adamson v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America | green | “there is no requirement that the basis relied upon be the only logical one or even the superlative one.” | 9 |
| 13 | Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Insurance Plan | green | “does not conclusively prohibit a district court from considering extra-record materials related to an administrator's dual role conflict of interest.” | 6 |
| 14 | Radford Trust v. First Unum Life Insurance Co. of America | green | “disturbing pattern of erroneous and arbitrary benefit denials, bad faith contract misinterpretations, and other unscrupulous tactics.” | 6 |
| 15 | Adamo v. Anchor Hocking Corp. | green | “without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.” | 5 |
| 16 | Palmer v. University Medical Group | green | “little, if any, language in the plan governing the matter in question.” | 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.