Barbara G. Hollenbeck, Adm'x of the Est. of Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., Barbara G. Hollenbeck, Adm'x of the Est. of Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 780 F.2d 20 (8th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Barbara G. Hollenbeck, Adm'x of the Est. of Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., Barbara G. Hollenbeck, Adm'x of the Est. of Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 780 F.2d 20 (8th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re: James Larry Saccheri and Judith Anne Saccheri (bap9, 2012-11-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re: James Larry Saccheri and Judith Anne Saccheri (2×)
9th Cir. BAP · 2012 · confidence medium
Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 20 794 (9th Cir. 1986). 21 We review the bankruptcy court’s evidentiary rulings for 22 abuse of discretion.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Cypert
W.D. Ark. · 1989 · confidence medium
Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 780 F.2d 20, 21 (8th Cir. 1985), there is support for the proposition punitive damages would not be allowed in this circuit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dasler v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.
D. Minnesota · 1988 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals in Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 653 F.2d 1208, 1216 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968 and 1084, 102 S.Ct. 512 and 641, 70 L.Ed.2d 384 (1981), stated "punitive damages are ... [not] provided for in ERISA.” The court of Appeals in Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 780 F.2d 20, 21 (8th Cir.1985), however, expressly reserved the question of whether punitive damages may be recovered in an ERISA action.
discussed Cited "see" Johnson v. Mortham
N.D. Fla. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 605 F.Supp. 421, 439 (D.Mo.1984) (Federal Express and local delivery service charges are not taxable costs under § 1920), aff'd, 780 F.2d 20 (8th Cir.1985); see also citations in the next paragraph, infra (postage costs not taxable under § 1920).
discussed Cited "see" Mid America Hotel Corp. v. Bernstein
N.D. Ill. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 605 F.Supp. 421, 429 (E.D.Mo.1984), aff'd, 780 F.2d 20 (8th Cir.1985); Ovitz v. Jeffries & Co., Inc., 574 F.Supp. 488, 490-91 (N.D.Ill.1983). * * 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (b)(2)(A) provides that state laws "regulating insurance” are not preempted by § 1144(a).
discussed Cited "see" James A. Dooley Assoc. Emp. Ret. Plan v. Reynolds (2×)
E.D. Mo. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 780 F.2d 20 (8th Cir.1985) (Eighth Circuit "decline[s] to reach the underlying question of whether punitive damages may ever be recovered in an ERISA action." Id. at 21 ). [4] Defendant also relies upon Meyer v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 575 F.Supp. 1232 (E.D.Mo.1983).
cited Cited "see" Midwest Petroleum v. American Petrofina Marketing
E.D. Mo. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 605 F.Supp. 421, 435 (E.D.Mo.1984), aff'd 780 F.2d 20 (8th Cir.1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barbara G. Hollenbeck, Administratrix of the Estate of Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased
v.
Falstaff Brewing Corporation, Barbara G. Hollenbeck, Administratrix of the Estate of Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased v. Falstaff Brewing Corporation
85-1359.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 18, 1985.
780 F.2d 20
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25714
Published

780 F.2d 20

Barbara G. HOLLENBECK, Administratrix of the Estate of
Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased, Appellee,
v.
FALSTAFF BREWING CORPORATION, Appellant.
Barbara G. HOLLENBECK, Administratrix of the Estate of
Virginia M. Gutting, Deceased, Appellant,
v.
FALSTAFF BREWING CORPORATION, Appellee.

Nos. 85-1359, 85-1422.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 11, 1985.
Decided Dec. 18, 1985.

Joseph L. Alioto, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

David G. Dempsey, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal and cross appeal raise various issues under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001-1461. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

2

We mention briefly only a single issue argued by the parties. That issue is whether punitive damages are available as a remedy to an ERISA violation.

3

The district court examined that issue and concluded it was "highly doubtful" this court would approve an award of punitive damages in an ERISA action. Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 605 F.Supp. 421, 435 (E.D.Mo.1984); see Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 653 F.2d 1208, 1216 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968 and 1084, 102 S.Ct. 512 and 641, 70 L.Ed.2d 384 and 619 (1981). The district court went on, however, to state that even if punitive damages were generally available none could properly be awarded in this case because in its view Falstaff's actions were neither malicious nor in wanton disregard of the beneficiaries' rights to receive insurance benefits. Hollenbeck, 605 F.Supp. at 436.

4

The district court's finding on the issue of punitive damages is a finding of fact. As such, it may only be overturned on appeal if found to be "clearly erroneous." Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); see also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511-13, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Jennings v. Dumas Public School District, 763 F.2d 28, 32 (8th Cir.1985). We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the district court's finding of no malice or wanton disregard is not clearly erroneous. Since this conclusion precludes the recovery of punitive damages under any circumstances, we have no need to and expressly decline to reach the underlying question of whether punitive damages may ever be recovered in an ERISA action.

5

We have examined all other contentions advanced by the parties and conclude they are without merit. Thus, we affirm the well-reasoned decision of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 14.