green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Rinehart ex rel. Buzzo v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.
See Rinehart v. Akers, 722 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.2013), vacated and re mandad, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2900 , 189 L.Ed.2d 853 (2014). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Shemesh v. CA, Inc.
See Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2899 , 189 L.Ed.2d 853 .
cited
Cited "see"
Peralta v. Roros 940, Inc.
See Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 707 F.3d 437, 447-49 (4th Cir.2013) (collecting cases), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2898 , 189 L.Ed.2d 853 (2014).
cited
Cited "see"
Gestamp South Carolina, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board
See NLRB v. Gestamp, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2901 , 189 L.Ed.2d 853 (2014).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Manoj Singh v. RadioShack Corporation, et a
Mar. 3, 2004) (unpublished); see also Kopp v. Klein, 722 F.3d 327, 343 (5th Cir. 2013), vacated on other grounds, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2900 , 189 L.Ed.2d 853 (2014). 40 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Lehman Bros. Securities & Erisa Litigation
Sec. & ERISA Litig., 683 F.Supp.2d 294 (S.D.N.Y.2010) ("Lehman ERISA I ”). . 722 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.2013). . — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2459 , 189 L.Ed.2d 457 (2014); see also — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2900 , 189 L.Ed.2d 853 (2014) (remanding Rinehart in light of Dudenhoeffer). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allen v. Baltimore County
Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 571-72 ; see also Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 707 F.3d 437, 443 (4th Cir.2013), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2898 , 189 L.Ed.2d 853 (2014); Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 104 F.3d 683, 686 (4th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Perez v. Bruister
The Court’s factual findings are limited to his sworn testimony, though the Court must necessarily address some of his legal arguments made while serving as counsel. .The section provides in part: [A] fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and— (A) for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.... 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a); see also Kopp v. Klein, 722 F.3d 327, 334 (5th Cir.2013) (discussing duties of …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peggy YOUNG
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
No. 12–1226..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 1, 2014.
Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted.