green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Violanda Soledad v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
See Kuntz v. Reese, 760 F.2d 926, 935 (9th Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 785 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986); Kelly v. Pan–Am.
discussed
Cited "see"
Glavor v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
Furthermore, when plaintiff requested for information on February 1, 1993, he was not a “participant” under section 1132(c) at the time of the request because he was not one “who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (7); see Kuntz v. Reese, 785 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Forbau Ex Rel. Miller v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
See Kuntz v. Reese, 760 F.2d 926, 935 (9th Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 785 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), ce rt. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986); Kelly v. Pan-Am.
cited
Cited "see"
Victor Vega-Encarnacion v. United States
See Porcaro v. United States, 784 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Vega-Encarcion v. U.S.A
See Porcaro v. United States, 784 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Vega-Encarcion v. U.S.A
See Porcaro v. United States, 784 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.) (per ___ _______ _____________ curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Henry Castro-Poupart v. United States
See Porcaro v. United States, 784 F.2d 38, 43 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 (1986)(where objections to grand jury composition must be filed before trial, § 2255 petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel as cause excusing procedural default given lack of success of similar challenges to jury selection plans) 7 The Assistant U.S. Attorney informed defense counsel of Riollano's expected testimony the day after she interviewed him 8 In this regard this case is distinguishable from those Castro cites, i.e., Government of Virgin Islands v. Zepp, 748 F.2d 125, 135 (3d…
discussed
Cited "see"
Donald Berger, Barbara Dallas, William Kier, Jr., Rose Saxman and Robert Wagner v. Edgewater Steel Company, a Subsidiary of Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Steel Company, as Plan Administrator of the Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, and John H. Kirkwood, an Individual. Appeal of Edgewater Steel Company and Edgewater Corporation, at Nos. 89-3465 & 89-3570. Donald Berger, Barbara Dallas, William Kier, Jr., Rose Saxman and Robert Wagner, at Nos. 89-3501 & 89-3596 v. Edgewater Steel Company, a Subsidiary of Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Corporation, Edgewater Steel Company, as Plan Administrator of the Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, and John H. Kirkwood, an Individual
See Kuntz v. Reese, 785 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (plaintiffs whose vested benefits under a plan have been distributed in lump sum lack standing to bring an action under ERISA), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986); Yancy v. American Petrofina, Inc., 768 F.2d 707, 708-09 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (employee lacks standing under ERISA to bring action over one year after his retirement claiming that a change in a retirement plan effective after his retirement forced him to retire early thus depriving him of several years of income and decreasing his final r…
discussed
Cited "see"
Berger v. Edgewater Steel Co.
See Kuntz v. Reese, 785 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.) (per curiam) (plaintiffs whose vested benefits under a plan have been distributed in lump sum lack standing to bring an action under ERISA), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986); Yancy v. American Petrofina, Inc., 768 F.2d 707, 708-09 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (employee lacks standing under ERISA to bring action over one year after his retirement claiming that a change in a retirement plan effective after his retirement forced him to retire early thus depriving him of several years of income and decreasing his final r…
cited
Cited "see"
J. Raymond Clark v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia
See Kunt v. Reese, 785 F.2d 1410, 1411 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William David Pankey
See Porcaro v. United States, 784 F.2d 38, 39 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 (1986). 1 22 Second, Pankey alleges that his trial counsel "permitted with out [sic] objection untrue statements by witnesses." We are not told which untrue statements were "permitted," what was untrue about those statements, or how the failure to object actually prejudiced Pankey's defense.
discussed
Cited "see"
Vilas v. Lyons
See Kuntz v. Reese, 785 F.2d 1410, 1411-12 (9th Cir.) (former employees who received lump sum distribution were not participants entitled to receive benefits and thus could not bring suit under ERISA because any recovery would be a damage award, not payment of vested benefits), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986); Joseph v. New Orleans Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mertens v. Hewitt Associates
Compare Kuntz v. Reese, 760 F. 2d 926, 938 (CA9 1985) (allowing such a recovery), vacated on other grounds, 785 F. 2d 1410 , cert. denied, 479 U. S. 916 (1986), with Sommers Drug Stores, supra, at 1463 (disallowing such a recovery); see also Cox v. Eichler, 765 F. Supp. 601, 610-611 (ND Cal. 1990) (punitive damages available under § 502(a)(2) but not under § 502(a)(3)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Justison v. National Postal Mail Handlers
“A breach of the statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190 , 87 S.Ct. 903, 916 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); see also Masy v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 790 F.2d 322, 328 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 320 , 93 L.Ed.2d 293 (1986) (assertions of arbitrary conduct found to be unsupported by factual allegations).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Donald F. Bogue v. Ampex Corporation and Allied-Signal, Inc. Does 1-10, Inclusive
See Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir.1989) (“[T]o establish a violation under § 1140, a plaintiff-employee must show that his [exercise of rights under the benefit plan] was the motivating force behind his discharge.”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 53 , 112 L.Ed.2d 28 (1990); Lojek v. Thomas, 716 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir.1983); see also Kuntz v. Reese, 760 F.2d 926, 933 (9th Cir.1985) ("[§ 1140] does not apply in cases, such as the one before us, in which the employees are not discharged.”), withdrawn on other grounds, 785 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.), cert. …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. General Motors Corp.
See, e.g., Kuntz v. Reese, 785 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 916 , 107 S.Ct. 318 , 93 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986); Saladino v. I.L.G.W.U.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kuntz
v.
Reese
v.
Reese
No. 86-349.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 20, 1986.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.