Arrington v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co, 543 U.S. 815 (2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Arrington v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co, 543 U.S. 815 (2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McNeal v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (oknd, 2019-09-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McNeal v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
N.D. Okla. · 2019 · confidence medium
Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 831 (2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 (2004). “[C]ourts have no warrant to require administrators to automatically accord special weight to the opinions of a claimant’s physician; nor may courts impose on administrators a discrete burden of explanation when they credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating physician’s evaluation.” Id. at 834.
discussed Cited "see" M.E. v. T.J.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Artichoke Joe’s Ca[l.] Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 , 719 n.10 (9th Cir.[ ]2003) (citation omitted) (declining to address whether a tribe was necessary party to challenge the validity of tribal-state gaming compacts because the issue was ‘raised only in an amicus brief’), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 (2004).”).
discussed Cited "see" McCRACKEN AND AMICK, INC. v. Perdue
N.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 , 719 n.10 (9th Cir. 2003) [hereinafter Artichoke Joe’s II] (declining to *484 address whether tribe was necessary party to challenge to the validity of tribal-state gaming compacts because the issue was “raised only in an amicus brief’), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 , 51, 160 L.
cited Cited "see" Collins v. Department of Interior
D.D.C. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 , 736 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 , 125 S.Ct. 51 , 160 L.Ed.2d 20 (2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shaw v. Life Insurance Co. of North America
C.D. Cal. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Where such discretion is vested in the administrator, “a district court may review the administrator’s determinations only for an abuse of discretion.” Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 9 F.3d 1469 , 1471 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994); see also Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.2004) (“[WJhere, as here, a plan administrator has ‘discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits,’ we review the benefits decision for abuse of discretion”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 , 125 S.Ct. 62 , 160 L.Ed.2d 20 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arrington
v.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co
03-1605.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 2004.
543 U.S. 815
Published

543 U.S. 815

ARRINGTON
v.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.

No. 03-1605.

Supreme Court of United States.

October 4, 2004.

1

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 93 Fed. Appx. 593.