green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.3 score
“an employee is 'vested' in a portion of his benefit when he has a nonforfeitable right to a given percentage of his accrued benefit.”
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dameron v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.
an employee is 'vested' in a portion of his benefit when he has a nonforfeitable right to a given percentage of his accrued benefit.
discussed
Cited "see"
Charles Goss v. City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Charles Goss v. City of Little Rock, Arkansas
(2×)
See Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 , 1141-42 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 126 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984), abrogated on a ground not relevant to this case, Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 442 , 111 S.Ct. 865 , 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Central Tool Co. v. International Ass'n of Machinists National Pension Fund, Benefit Plan A
See Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 235 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 127, 129 , 730 F.2d 1552, 1554 , cert, denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Central Tool Company v. International Association of MacHinists National Pension Fund, Benefit Plan A, Central Tool Company v. International Association of MacHinists National Pension Fund, Benefit Plan A
See Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 235 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 127, 129 , 730 F.2d 1552, 1554 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984). 63 Supra note 42 64 The resolution was adopted on March 13, 1953, and made "retroactively effective as of January 29, 1953." Kosty v. Lewis, supra note 42, 115 U.S.App.D.C. at 345, 319 F.2d at 746 .
cited
Cited "see"
George Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund
See generally Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 730 F.2d 1552, 1556-57 (D.C.Cir.1984), cer t. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
Kenneth Hoover v. Cumberland, Maryland Area Teamsters Pension Fund
See Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 730 F.2d 1552, 1561-62 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Hoover v. Cumberland, Maryland Area Teamsters Pension Fund
See Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 730 F.2d 1552, 1561-62 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc.
See, e.g., Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 730 F.2d 1552, 1563 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984) (mere exercise of a plan provision held not an amendment for certain ERISA purposes); Dooley v. American Airlines, Inc., 797 F.2d 1447, 1450-52 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1032 , 1087, 107 S.Ct. 879 , 1292, 93 L.Ed.2d 833 , 94 L.Ed.2d 149 (1987) (where (1) plan provided that employer could approve actuarial factors from time to time, (2) employer approved certain actuarial factors pursuant to the plan provision, and (3) employer later…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roy v. City of Little Rock
(2×)
See Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 398-402 , 99 S.Ct. 1171, 1175-77 , 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979); see also Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 , 1147 (8th Cir.) ("Violations of the fourteenth amendment, in-eluding those which involve the deprivation of property, are clearly within the ambit of § 1983.”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 126 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Esslinger v. Baltimore City
See, e.g., Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 730 F.2d 1552 , 1557 n. 10 (D.C.Cir.), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984) (subsequent decision of another federal appellate court); Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Auth. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 718 F.2d 533 , 542-43 (2d Cir.1983) (subsequent decision of Interstate Commerce Commission); Katz v. State Tax Assessor, 472 A.2d 428 , 431 n. 3 (Me. 1984) (subsequent decision of State tax assessor).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Scotto v. Brink's Inc.
See, e.g., Stewart v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 730 F.2d 1552, 1561-62 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 127 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984); 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (23).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dennis v. State
(2×)
We have previously stated that “§ 1983 was not intended to encompass those constitutional provisions which allocate power between the state and federal government.” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 , 848 (9th Cir.1984) (Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal-state priorities, does not secure individual rights under § 1983), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1060 , 107 S.Ct. 940 , 93 L.Ed.2d 990 (1987); see also Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139, 1144 (8th Cir.1984) (The Commerce Clause is “an allocating provision, not one that secures rights cogniza…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kraft v. Jacka
(2×)
We have previously stated that "Sec. 1983 was not intended to encompass those constitutional provisions which allocate power between the state and federal government." White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 , 848 (9th Cir.1984) (Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal-state priorities, does not secure individual rights under Sec. 1983), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1060 , 107 S.Ct. 940 , 93 L.Ed.2d 990 (1987); see also Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 , 1144 (8th Cir.1984) (The Commerce Clause is "an allocating provision, not one that secures rights cognizab…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kraft v. Jacka
(2×)
We have previously stated that “§ 1983 was not intended to encompass those constitutional provisions which allocate power between the state and federal government.” White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams, 810 F.2d 844 , 848 (9th Cir.1984) (Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal-state priorities, does not secure individual rights under § 1983), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1060 , 107 S.Ct. 940 , 93 L.Ed.2d 990 (1987); see also Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 , 1144 (8th Cir.1984) (The Commerce Clause is “an allocating provision, not one that secures rights cogniz…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Toribio Garcia v. Juan Bauza-Salas
(2×)
See, e.g., Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 , 1142-47 (8th Cir.) (discussing purposes of § 1983 and concluding the section is not applicable in commerce clause cases), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 , 105 S.Ct. 126 , 83 L.Ed.2d 68 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schram, Personal Representative of the Estate of Gaydos
v.
Dade County
v.
Dade County
No. 83-2116.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: D. Maryland (1)
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.