green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.5 score
“if an erisa plan did not exist, the appellees would never have brought .”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Corrigan v. Local 6, Bakery, Confectionary & Tobacco Workers
if an erisa plan did not exist, the appellees would never have brought .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
St. Peter's University Hospital v. New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Welfare Fund
(2×)
Id. at 404.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ronald J. Srein and R.J. Srein Corp. v. Frankford Trust Company, N/k/a Key Trust Company
See The 1975 Salaried Retirement Plan For Eligible Employees of Crucible, Inc. v. Nobers, 968 F.2d 401, 406 (3d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1086 , 113 S.Ct. 1066 , 122 L.Ed.2d 370 (1993) (explaining that preemption applies when a state law claim depends on the existence of an ERISA plan).
cited
Cited "see"
NJ Ass'n of Health Plans v. Farmer
See In re Plan for Orderly Withdrawal, 129 N.J. 389, 416 , 609 A. 2d 1248 (1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 1086 , 113 S.Ct. 1066 , 122 L.Ed. 2d 370 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
International Association of Entrepreneurs of America v. Angoff
See 1975 Salaried Retirement Plan, etc. v. Nobers, 968 F.2d 401 , 408 (3rd Cir.1992) (refusing to enjoin state action deciding matters within exclusive federal jurisdiction), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1066 , 122 L.Ed.2d 370 (1993); Total Plan Servs. v. Texas Retailers Ass'n, 925 F.2d 142 , 144-46 (5th Cir.1991) (same); ERISA LITIGATION, ch. 1, Sec. 1.04[A], at 29 ("Despite this grant of exclusive jurisdiction, a federal court ordinarily may not enjoin a state court action seeking to adjudicate claims exclusively within federal court jurisdiction.").) 9 Our conclusion that concurre…
discussed
Cited "see"
International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America v. Angoff
See 1975 Salaried Retirement Plan, etc. v. Nobers, 968 F.2d 401 , 408 (3rd Cir.1992) (refusing to enjoin state action deciding matters within exclusive federal jurisdiction), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1066 , 122 L.Ed.2d 370 (1993); Total Plan Servs. v. Texas Retailers Ass’n, 925 F.2d 142, 144-46 (5th Cir.1991) (same); ERISA Litigation, ch. 1, § 1.04[A], at 29 (“Despite this grant of exclusive jurisdiction, a federal court ordinarily may not enjoin a state court action seeking to adjudicate claims exclusively within federal court jurisdiction.”).) Our conclusion that concurren…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Paul Edward Hromada
Buie, 494 U.S. at 329-30 , 110 S.Ct. at 1096 ; see United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001, 1010 (11th Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1065 , 122 L.Ed.2d 370 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard M. Hirschfeld
See United States v. Hirschfeld, 964 F.2d 318 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 61 U.S.L.W. 3499 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kevin McKinley Seamus Moley, Joseph McColgan
See United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001,1007 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, Kimmons v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1065 , 122 L.Ed.2d 370 , and cert, granted and judgment vacated, Small v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2326 , 124 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Spencer
Cir. 1995); United States v. Oguns, 921 F.2d 442, 446-47 (2d Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001, 1004, 1009-10 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1086 , 113 S. Ct. 1065 , 122 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gaydos Ins. v. National Cons. Ins.
See also In re Plan for Orderly Withdrawal, 129 N.J. 389 , 609 A. 2d 1248 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1086 , 113 S.Ct. 1066 , 122 L.Ed. 2d 370 (1993); State Farm v. State, 124 N.J. 32 , 590 A. 2d 191 (1991); Inre Comm'r of Insurance, 256 N.J.Super. 158 , 606 A. 2d 851 (App.Div. 1992), aff'd 132 N.J. 209 , 624 A. 2d 565 (1993); In re Private Passenger Auto.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Board of Trustees of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 25 and Employers' Health and Welfare Fund v. The Madison Hotel, Inc.
See also 1975 Salaried Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees of Crucible, Inc. v. Nobers, 968 F.2d 401, 406 (3d Cir.1992) (state contract claim preempted where "calculation of damages would involve construction of ERISA plans”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1086 , 113 S.Ct. 1066 , 122 L.Ed.2d 370 (1993). 17 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bledsoe v. Fulton Bank
U.S. Steel, 885 F.2d at 1170; see also 1975 Salaried Retirement Plan v. Nobers, 968 F.2d 401 , 405 (3d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1086 , 113 S.Ct. 1066 , 122 L.Ed.2d 370 (1993); Texas Employers’ Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
1975 Salaried Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees of Crucible, Inc.
v.
Nobers
v.
Nobers
No. 92-597.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 19, 1993.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice White would grant certio-rari.