green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Matthew v. United States
See In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litig., 818 F.2d 201, 203 (2d Cir.1987) (“ ‘There has been no suggestion in the legislative history of the Act that Congress was aware that the Tort Claims Act might be interpreted in such an anomalous manner that a serviceman-husband performing his military duty would be denied recovery against the Government whose employee’s negligence may have caused him serious injury, while his spouse is allowed recovery as a consequence of the same set of facts.’ ” (quoting Harrison v. United States, 479 F.Supp. 529, 535 (D.Conn.1979), aff'd, 622 F.2d 57…
discussed
Cited "see"
Matthew v. United States
See In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litig., 818 F.2d 201, 203 (2d Cir.1987) (“ ‘There has been no suggestion in the legislative history of the Act that Congress was aware that the Tort Claims Act might be interpreted in such an anomalous manner that a serviceman-husband performing his military duty would be denied recovery against the Government whose employee’s negligence may have caused him serious injury, while his spouse is allowed recovery as a consequence of the same set of facts.’ ” (quoting Harrison v. United States, 479 F.Supp. 529, 535 (D.Conn.1979), aff'd, 622 F.2d 57…
discussed
Cited "see"
MacRo v. Independent Health Ass'n, Inc.
See id. at 120 (citing Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (employee benefits plans established under collective bargaining agreements between union and school districts, funded entirely by employees, are governmental plans exempted from ERISA), aff'd, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980); Lovelace v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 775 F.Supp. 228 (S.D.Ohio 1991) (same for plan covering city public school system employees, even though plan was issued and administered by private insurer); see also Opinion of U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Pension and Welfare Benefit Program…
cited
Cited "see"
Canady v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
See Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256, 1260-62 (S.D.N.Y.1979), aff'd, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re McKeag
See Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256, 1266 (S.D.N.Y.1979), aff'd 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980); Fleck v. Spannaus, 449 F.Supp. 644, 654 (D.Minn.1977), revd on other grounds, 438 U.S. 234 , 98 S.Ct. 2716 , 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Friedman v. Perales
See Hempstead General Hospital v. Whalen, 474 F.Supp. 398 (E.D.N.Y.1979), aff’d, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Illinois Council on Long Term Care v. Miller
See Hempstead General Hospital v. Whalen, 474 F.Supp. 398, 406 (E.D.N.Y.1979), aff'd 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980); Hospital Association of New York State, Inc. v. Toia, 438 F.Supp. 866, 868-69 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vandermark v. City of New York
See also Roy v. Teachers' Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 878 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1989) ("The governmental plan exemption embodied in section 1003(b) evinces "Congress” intent to refrain from interfering with the manner in which state and local governments operate employee benefit systems.”) (quoting Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256, 1261 (S.D.N.Y.1979), aff'd, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir. 1980)). 90 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Horizon Naturla Resources Co.
See also Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256, 1260 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (interpreting a provision of ERISA dealing with plans that are “established or maintained” by a government, holding that a plan that is funded by a government is “maintained” by it), aff'd, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mary Rose v. The Long Island Railroad Pension Plan
See also Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256, 1261 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (purpose of ERISA governmental exemption was to "refrain from interfering with the manner in which state and local governments operate employee benefit systems"), aff'd, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980). 23 The governmental plan exemption from Title I coverage is codified at 29 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rose v. Long Island Railroad Pension Plan
See also Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F.Supp. 1256, 1261 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (purpose of ERISA governmental exemption was to “refrain from interfering with the manner in which state and local governments operate employee benefit systems”), aff 'd, 622 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Feinstein
v.
Lewis
v.
Lewis
79-6269.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 28, 1980.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Feinstein
v.
Lewis
79-6269
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Second Circuit
3/28/80
S.D.N.Y., 477 F.Supp. 1256
AFFIRMED