green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.4 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Varhola v. John Doe
eview ... is limited to a determination of whether the trustees' actions in administering or interpreting a plan's provisions are arbitrary and capricious.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Varhola v. Doe
eview ... is limited to a determination of whether the trustees' actions in administering or interpreting a plan's provisions are arbitrary and capricious.
discussed
Cited "see"
Riley on Behalf of Swanson v. Herbes
See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program for Salaried Employees, 740 F.2d 454, 456 (6th Cir.1984) (absent violation of law, court may not modify substantive provisions of ERISA plan), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Kellett v. United States
See Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d 679, 682 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kellett v. United States
See Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d 679 , ___ ______ _____________ 682 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 (1985). _____________ Prior to his trial, Kellett sought assurances from the ____________________ 2.
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERN. v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp.
See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program for Salaried Employees, 740 F.2d 454, 456 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose E. Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States
See Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d 679, 681 (1st Cir.1984) (stating that Halliday held only that a district judge, who accepted a guilty plea without making any inquiry into the volun-tariness of the plea, should not also decide a § 2255 motion claiming that the judge violated Rule 11), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 787 , 83 L.Ed.2d 781 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Honea v. Morton Thiokol, Inc.
See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program for Salared Employees, 740 F.2d 454 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 (1985); see also Norman v. United Mine Workers of Am.
discussed
Cited "see"
Albury v. State
See United States v. Saade, 652 F.2d 1126, 1135 (1st Cir.1981), quoted in Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d 679, 682 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 787 , 83 L.Ed.2d 781 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Young v. Standard Oil (Indiana)
See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program, 740 F.2d 454 , 456 n. 4 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985) (courts are not permitted to modify language of a benefit plan). 62 We conclude, based on the evidence presented to the Amoco plan administrator, there was no issue of fact whether plaintiffs were offered employment with Cropmate.
discussed
Cited "see"
Young v. Standard Oil (Indiana)
See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program, 740 F.2d 454 , 456 n. 4 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985) (courts are not permitted to modify language of a benefit plan).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cook v. Ford Motor Co.
See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program for Salaried Employees, 740 F.2d 454, 457 (6th Cir.1984) (review of a plan’s decision denying benefits “is limited to a determination of whether the trustees’ actions in administering or interpreting a plan’s provisions are arbitrary and capricious”), cer t. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985)..
cited
Cited "see"
Young v. Standard Oil (Indiana)
See Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program, 740 F.2d 454 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Thomas J. Bassford
See Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d 679, 682-83 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 787 , 83 L.Ed.2d 781 (1985); United States v. Saade, 652 F.2d 1126, 1135 (1st Cir.1981); United States v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 576 F.2d 388, 395 (1st Cir.1978). 12 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Clark
See, United States v. Geller, 560 F.Supp. 1309, 1326 (E.D.Pa.1983), aff'd, 745 F.2d 49 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Barry W. Levine
Meyer, 462 F.2d at 843 (emphasis added); see also Sandstrom v. Butterworth, 738 F.2d 1200, 1212-13 (11th Cir.1984) (noting, in dicta, that “when bias is presumed solely from the contemnor’s personal attacks on the judge, this potential bias does not overcome the need for judicial authority to maintain courtroom order”) (internal quotation omitted), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 787 , 83 L.Ed.2d 781 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Helwig v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.
The Sixth Circuit has held that a company “does not act in a fiduciary capacity when deciding to amend or terminate a welfare benefits plan.” Adams v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 905 F.2d 943, 947 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 984 , 111 S.Ct. 517 , 112 L.Ed.2d 529 (1990); see also Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program, 740 F.2d 454, 456 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985); Cunha v. Ward Foods, Inc., 804 F.2d 1418, 1432-33 (9th Cir.1986) (decision to terminate pension plan not related to fiduciary duty); Chait v. Bernstein, 645 F.Sup…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Oscar Andiarena v. United States
See, e.g., Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d 679, 682 (1st Cir.1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 787 , 83 L.Ed.2d 781 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frank M. Berlin v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company
See also Shawe & Swerdlin, You Promised!--May an Employer Cancel or Modify Employee Severance Pay Arrangements?, 44 Md.L.Rev. 903 (1985) (discussing Sutton, supra ). 60 Under the exclusion from fiduciary standards for business decisions, corporate actions by plan administrators seeking to reduce the amount of unaccrued plan benefits, West v. Greyhound Corp., 813 F.2d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.1987), terminating a pension plan, Cunha v. Ward Foods, Inc., 804 F.2d 1418, 1432 (9th Cir.1986), and deciding whether or not to establish a plan, Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co., 740 F.2d 454, 456 (6th Cir.1984)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund Of Philadelphia And Vicinity v. Central Michigan Trucking, Inc.
See, e.g., Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program, 740 F.2d 454, 457 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985). 30 For the reasons given by the district court and for the additional reasons set out herein, we affirm the judgment denying the Fund's assessment of withdrawal liability against Fuqua under Count I. 1 Interstate filed a petition seeking Chapter 11 reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code on April 11, 1984.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Central Michigan Trucking, Inc.
See, e.g., Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program, 740 F.2d 454, 457 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Whitty
See also Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d 679, 682-83 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 787 , 83 L.Ed.2d 781 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carter v. State
See also, Sandstrom v. State, 402 So.2d 461 (Fla.App.1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 787 , 83 L.Ed.2d 781 (1985) (an order to cease examining a witness or not to continue a line of questioning must be obeyed).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Arakelian v. National Western Life Insurance
See also, e.g., Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program for Salaried Employees, 740 F.2d 454, 456 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Turner v. Retirement Plan of Marathon Oil Co.
See also Moore v. Reynolds Metals Co. Retirement Program for Salaried Employees, 740 F.2d 454, 457 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 , 105 S.Ct. 786 , 83 L.Ed.2d 780 (1985); Rhoton v. Central States Sutheast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 717 F.2d 988, 990 (6th Cir.1983).
Buxbom
v.
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of California, Inc.
v.
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of California, Inc.
No. 84-709.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (2)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.