Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 469 U.S. 917 (1984). · Go Syfert
Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 469 U.S. 917 (1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Allan C. Aldridge v. Lily-Tulip, Inc. Salary Retirement Plan Benefits Committee (ca11, 1992-04-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Allan C. Aldridge v. Lily-Tulip, Inc. Salary Retirement Plan Benefits Committee
11th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 732 F.2d 548, 551-52 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984).
cited Cited "see" Aldridge v. Lily-tulip, Inc. Salary Retirement Plan Benefits Committee
11th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 732 F.2d 548, 551-52 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Caterpillar, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Marshall further explained that "[i]t is particularly pertinent for our purposes that Congress did not prohibit 'integration,' a calculation practice under which benefit levels are determined by combining pension funds with other income streams available to the retired employee[ ]." Id. at 514, 101 S.Ct. at 1901 ; see Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 732 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir.) (quoting same passage as support for holding that an employer could offset benefits owed under one pension plan by benefits owed under another), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294…
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Caterpillar, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Marshall further explained that “[i]t is particularly pertinent for our purposes that Congress did not prohibit ‘integration,’ a calculation practice under which benefit levels are determined by combining pension funds with other income streams available to the retired employee[].” Id. at 514, 101 S.Ct. at 1901 ; see Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 732 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir.) (quoting same passage as support for holding that an employer could offset benefits owed under one pension plan by benefits owed under another), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.…
cited Cited "see" Merritt Logan, Inc. v. Fleming Companies, Inc. (In re Merritt Logan, Inc.)
3rd Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stich v. United States, 730 F.2d 115, 117 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984); Joy Mfg.
cited Cited "see" Demisay v. Local 144, Nursing Home Pension Fund
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 732 F.2d 548, 550-51 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984). 11 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Alan Louis Chavis and Lambert Daniel Slisz
5th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stick v. United States, 730 F.2d 115, 117 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984); Bryan v. Cargill, Inc., 723 F.2d 1202, 1203 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Adcock v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
M.D. Tenn. · 1985 · signal: accord · confidence high
In such a sitaution it is a reasonable inference that Congress intended some law, and therefore federal law, to apply____” “[T]he court concludes that the statutory scheme, as well as the legislative history of ERISA, support the “reasonable inference” that this Court is mandated to formulate and apply a federal rule of decision in this case.” Id. at 2139, 42 B.R. 1005 , quoting Wayne Chemical v. Columbus Agency Service Corp., 426 F.Supp. 316, 322 (N.D.Ind.), aff’d and modified, 567 F.2d 692 (7th Cir. 1977); accord Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 555 F.Supp. 51, 55 (E.D.Mich.1982), aff’…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Riggi, John M., in 90-5974. United States of America v. Timpani, Salvatore, in 90-5975 (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 336 , 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985), Stick v. United States, 730 F.2d 115, 117 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984); Virgin Islands v. Blyden, 626 F.2d 310, 313 (3d Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Weiner v. Kneller
D.C. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Stich v. United States, 730 F.2d 115, 118 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917 , 105 S.Ct. 294 , 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984) (supplementation of expert testimony with analysis from article made available only a week before trial permissible, even though not included in pretrial statement, where new research was consistent with earlier work done by same expert and based on same data); Murphy, supra, 639 F.2d at 234-35 , (given lack of prejudice and importance of evidence involved, plaintiff’s expert witness should have been allowed to rebut testimony contrary to his original theory "despi…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Holliday
v.
Xerox Corp.
Published

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.