James Schroeder, on Behalf of Himself & as a Rep. of the Class Herein Defined v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
James Schroeder, on Behalf of Himself & as a Rep. of the Class Herein Defined v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1994 · …section 851 does not specify the particular form which notice of enhancement must take.... at p. 419 ⚠ not in text
18 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: M.I.S. Engineering v. U.S. Express Enterprises, Inc. (ned, 2006-06-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.I.S. Engineering v. U.S. Express Enterprises, Inc.
D. Neb. · 2006 · confidence medium
For this very reason, the Eighth Circuit held in Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1992), that it was error to apply § 25-219 to a suit for ERISA benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B), and determined that the most analogous statute of limitations under Nebraska law is the five-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-205.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Angell v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.
E.D. Mo. · 2006 · confidence medium
Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593 , 598 (2d Cir.1983) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Daill v. Sheet Metal Workers' Local 73 Pension Fund, 100 F.3d 62, 66 (7th Cir.1996) ("a cause of action accrues upon a clear and unequivocal repudiation of rights under the pension plan which has been made known to the beneficiary," even if such repudiation occurs prior to the beneficiary's submission of a formal claim); Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (agreeing with district court that cause of action accrued …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bobbie J. Duchek v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska Health and Management Strategies International, Inc.
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
R.R. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325 , 330 (8th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3783 (U.S. May 27, 1998) (No. 97-1919); Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bobbie J. Duchek v. Blue Cross & Blue
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
R.R. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325 , 330 (8th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3783 (U.S. May 27, 1998) (No. 97-1919); Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Union Pacific RR Co. v. Bryan L. Beckham (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593 , 598 (2d Cir.1983) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Daill v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 73 Pension Fund, 100 F.3d 62, 66 (7th Cir. 1996) (“a cause of action accrues upon a clear and unequivocal repudiation of rights under *331 the pension plan which has been made known to the beneficiary,” even if such repudiation occurs prior to the beneficiary’s submission of a formal claim); Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (agreeing with district court that cause of …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 21 Employee Benefits Cas. 2712, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23940w Union Pacific Railroad Company Missouri Pacific Railroad Company Union Pacific Corporation Missouri-Kansas-Texas System Pension Plan for Non-Agreement Employees, by Ursula Fairbairn, Barbara Schaefer, and James Young, in Their Capacity as the Pension Committee v. Bryan L. Beckham Gary K. Bradshaw William E. Dixon Mike L. Eudy Marshall W. Hales Billy Joe Harmon James M. Hentschel Carl W. Holem James D. Miller Cecil Rhodes, Jr. Paul J. Richter Daniel A. Witte, Wyatt Company, the Towers Perrin, Interested Parties, Pension Plan for Salaried Employees of Union Pacific Corporation and Affiliates, Secretary of Labor, Amicus Curiae, Bryan L. Beckham Gary K. Bradshaw William E. Dixon Mike L. Eudy Marshall W. Hales Billy Joe Harmon James M. Hentschel Carl W. Holem James D. Miller Cecil Rhodes, Jr. Paul J. Richter Daniel A. Witte, Union Pacific Corporation Missouri-Kansas-Texas System Pension Plan for Non-Agreement Employees Pension Committee of the Mkt Plan Named Fiduciary-Plan Administration of the Up Plan (The \Up Plan Administrator\") (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593 , 598 (2d Cir.1983) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Daill v. Sheet Metal Workers' Local 73 Pension Fund, 100 F.3d 62, 66 (7th Cir.1996) ("a cause of action accrues upon a clear and unequivocal repudiation of rights under the pension plan which has been made known to the beneficiary," even if such repudiation occurs prior to the beneficiary's submission of a formal claim); Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (agreeing with district court that cause of action accrued …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mansfield v. Chicago Park District Group Plan
N.D. Ill. · 1996 · confidence medium
Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129, 1137 (7th Cir.1992); Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Meade v. Pension Appeals and Review Comm., 966 F.2d 190, 194-95 (6th Cir.1992).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Rene Gonzalez-Lerma, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (4×)
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
"Section 851 does not specify the particular form which notice of enhancement must take...." 3 Belanger, 970 F.2d at 419.
cited Cited "see" Christensen v. Northrop Grumman Cor
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1992); Jenkins v. Local 705 Int'l Broth. of Teamsters, 713 F.2d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1983).
cited Cited "see" Dianne Shea v. Sidney Esensten
8th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Shea v. Esensten
8th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schroeder v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 970 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James SCHROEDER, on Behalf of Himself and as a Representative of the Class Herein Defined, Appellant, PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellee
92-1008.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 21, 1992.
970 F.2d 419
Thom K. Cope, Lincoln, Neb., for appellant., David R. Wilson, Lincoln, Neb., for ap-pellee.
McMillian, Wollman, Loken.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #37,646 of 633,719
Citer courts: Third Circuit (1) · Fourth Circuit (1)
PER CURIAM.

James Schroeder, on behalf of himself and as representative of the class comprised of former employees of Phillips Petroleum Company subsidiaries (hereinafter “plaintiffs”), appeals the district court’s orders denying his objection to the removal of the case to federal court and granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as time-barred. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Removal to federal court was proper in this case because plaintiffs’ common law contract claim alleging failure to pay severance benefits is pre-empted by ERISA. See Hamilton v. Air Jamaica, Ltd., 945 F.2d 74, 76-77 (3d Cir.1991) (employee handbook containing severance pay provision constituted ERISA plan), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1479, 117 L.Ed.2d 622 (1992); Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987) (common law contract claim alleging improper processing of benefit claim under employee benefit plan preempted by ERISA); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987) (common law causes of action filed in state court that are preempted by ERISA are properly removable to federal court). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ objection to the removal of the case to federal court.

In determining that plaintiffs’ action was time-barred, the district court applied Nebraska’s three-year statute of limitations for “[ajctions upon a liability created by federal statute” for which no period of limitations is provided. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-219 (Reissue 1989). Because ERISA does not contain a statute of limitations applicable to actions for recovery of benefits under a regulated plan, the district court must “look to [state] law for the most analogous statute of limitations, but ... the characterization of plaintiff’s claim for statute of limitations purposes is a question of federal law.” Johnson v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co. of America, 942 F.2d 1260, 1262 (8th Cir.1991) (en banc). In Johnson, we held that “a suit for ERISA benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B) should be characterized as a contract action for statute of limitations purposes, unless a breach of the ERISA trustee’s fiduciary duties is alleged.” Id. at 1263. Plaintiffs did not allege a breach of the trustee’s fiduciary duties in this instance. Therefore, under federal law, the action is characterized as a contract action, and we conclude that the most analogous statute of limitations under Nebraska law is the five-year statute of limitations for actions on written contracts. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-205 (Reissue 1989).

Applying the five-year statute of limitations, plaintiffs’ claim was timely filed in December 1989. The district court correctly determined that plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued no later than February 28, 1986. Under the five-year statute of limi[*421] tations, plaintiffs had until February 1991 to file this action.

We reverse the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim as time-barred, and we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.