green
Positive treatment
1.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Award Service, Inc. v. Northern California Retail Clerks Unions and Food Employers Joint Pension Trust Fund, a Trust Fund
Trucks, Inc. v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan, 517 F.Supp. 1122 (D.Minn.1981) (employer should be refunded mistaken contributions if equity requires it); see also Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan v. Wholesale Produce Supply Co., 478 F.Supp. 884 (D.Minn.), aff'd, 611 F.2d 694 (8th Cir.1979), and Service Employees International Union Local 82 Labor-Management Trust Fund v. Baucom Janitorial Service, Inc., 504 F.Supp. 197 (D.D.C.1980) (offset allowed to employer for overpaid contributions without consideration of permissive phraseology of sec…
discussed
Cited "but see"
Chase v. Trustees of Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund
(2×)
But see Crown Cork and Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia, 549 F.Supp. 307, 312 (E.D.Pa.1982) aff’d mem., 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983) (language of section 1103(c)(2)(A) is permissive and employer has no right to restitution because such a right could “severely undermine the funds’ integrity”).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Robert S. Chase and Ernest C. Rank v. The Trustees of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, Donald R. Allen v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund
(2×)
But see Crown Cork and Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia, 549 F.Supp. 307, 312 (E.D.Pa.1982) aff'd mem., 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983) (language of section 1103(c)(2)(A) is permissive and employer has no right to restitution because such a right could "severely undermine the funds' integrity"). 30 Legitimate concerns about the stability of the trust fund can be resolved by only allowing restitution when the refund would not affect the fund's stability.
cited
Cited "see"
Whitworth Bros. Storage Company v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Defendants
See Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia, 549 F.Supp. 307, 309 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff’d, 720 F.2d 661 (3rd Cir.1983). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Asplundh Manufacturing Division v. Benton Harbor Engineering
United States v. Carlock, 806 F.2d 535, 552 (5th Cir.1986) (recognizing that a "common illustration” of an admissible opinion under Rule 701 is “an expression of opinion by a lay observer of a car’s speed”), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 949 , 950, 107 S.Ct. 1611 , 1613, 94 L.Ed.2d 796 , 798 (1987); see also Ernst v. Ace Motor Sales, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 1220, 1222-23 (E.D.Pa.1982) (admitting opinion testimony as to the point of impact of two vehicles from a police officer who did not observe a car accident, but arrived shortly thereafter), aff 'd, 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Asplundh Manufacturing Division v. Benton Harbor Engineering
See WEINSTEIN, supra, p 701 4 United States v. Langford, 802 F.2d 1176, 1178-79 (9th Cir.1986) (admitting identification testimony with respect to persons depicted in a bank surveillance photograph), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1008 , 107 S.Ct. 3235 , 97 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987); United States v. Allen, 787 F.2d 933, 935-37 (4th Cir.1986) (same), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 944 , 109 S.Ct. 371 , 102 L.Ed.2d 360 (1988); United States v. Farnsworth, 729 F.2d 1158, 1160-61 (8th Cir.1984) (same); United States v. Jackson, 688 F.2d 1121, 1125 (7th Cir.1982) (same), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043 , 103 S.Ct. 1441 , 75…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
D & F Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Pattern & Model Makers Ass'n of Warren & Vicinity Defined Benefit Pension Plan
See also, Crown Cork & Seal v. Teamsters Pension Fund, 549 F.Supp. 307 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd, 720 F.2d 661 (3rd Cir.1983) (“Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this [ERISA] case is a separate inquiry from whether a cause of action may properly be asserted [by the plaintiff-employer].” 549 F.Supp. at 309 .); In re Estate of Sheppard, 658 F.Supp. 729, 735 (C.D.Ill.1987) (“The issue of standing [under ERISA] is analytically distinct from the question of jurisdiction.”) C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Plucinski v. I.A.M. National Pension Fund
See Whitworth Brothers Storage Co. v. Central States, 794 F.2d 221, 233 (6th Cir.1986); Dime Coal Co. v. Combs, 796 F.2d 394 (11th Cir.1986); see also Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund, 549 F.Supp. 307 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff 'd mem., 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983). 4 We agree with the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Henry F. Plucinski v. I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co., Perth Amboy Management Pension Fund, William T. Harth, Alfred C. Bruggeman, John Doe and Richard Roe, Third Party v. District No. 15, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Third Party Appeal of I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co.
See Whitworth Brothers Storage Co. v. Central States, 794 F.2d 221, 233 (6th Cir.1986); Dime Coal Co. v. Combs, 796 F.2d 394 (11th Cir.1986); see also Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund, 549 F.Supp. 307 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd mem., 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983). 4 We agree with the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits. 18 In Award Service, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs met the first Cort v. Ash factor, because section 403(c)(2)(A)(ii) of ERISA--the section that permits pension funds to return payments made under mistake of fact or law--was "clearly designed for the benefit of emplo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Redmond v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company Pension Plan
See Snyder, supra, 513 F.Supp. at 937 ; see also Dudo v. Schaffer, 551 F.Supp. 1330, 1340 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd mem., 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983). 62 Finally, appellant argues that the word "uninterrupted" in section 3.4(c) of the 1975, 1979, and January 1981 Plans cannot be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of "continuous" because then section 3.4(c) would violate Sec. 1053(b)(3)(B).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carpenters Local 1471 v. Bar-Con, Inc.
Compare Award Service, Inc. v. N. Cal. Retail Clerks Unions, 763 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir.1985), and Teamsters Local 639 v. Cassidy Trucking, Inc., 646 F.2d 865 (4th Cir.1981) (allowing private action), with Dime Coal Company, Inc. v. Combs, 796 F.2d 394 (11th Cir.1986), and Teamsters Local 348 v. Kohn Beverage Co., 749 F.2d 315 , 321 n. 6 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1017 , 105 S.Ct. 2024 , 85 L.Ed.2d 305 (1985) (refusing to recognize action); see also Crown Cork and Seal v. Teamsters Pension Fund, 549 F.Supp. 307, 309 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff 'd mem., 720 F.2d 661 (3rd Cir.1983) (denial of imp…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John R. Peckham and W.T. Woolum v. Board of Trustees of the International Brotherhood and Allied Trades Union and Industry National Pension Fund
Compare Fenton Industries, Inc. v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 674 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir.1982), with Crown Cork and Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund, 549 F.Supp. 307 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff’d mem. 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Doe
v.
Colautti
v.
Colautti
83-1039.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Aug 16, 1983.
720 F.2d 661
Published
Doe
v.
Colautti
83-1039
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit
8/16/83
E.D.Pa., Bechtle, J.
AFFIRMED