Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan v. Pascack Valley Hosp., Inc., 546 U.S. 813 (2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan v. Pascack Valley Hosp., Inc., 546 U.S. 813 (2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. James Marvin Cox, III (ca11, 2006-07-07) · Strongest negative: Union Labor Life Insurance v. Olsten Corp. Health & Welfare Benefit Plan (nyed, 2008-03-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Union Labor Life Insurance v. Olsten Corp. Health & Welfare Benefit Plan
E.D.N.Y · 2008 · signal: but see · confidence high
The Third Circuit has held that a fiduciary may not sue under Section 502(a)(1) in part because “Congress simply made no provision in § 1132(a)(1)(B) for persons other than participants and beneficiaries to sue, including persons purporting to sue on their behalf ... [and] the intentions of the parties and the district court regarding federal jurisdiction are irrelevant to the determination whether such jurisdiction exists.” Northeast Dep’t ILGWU v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229, 764 F.2d 147 , 154 n. 6 (3d Cir.1985): but see Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. James Marvin Cox, III
11th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303, 1315 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 336 , 163 L.Ed.2d 48 (2005). “[W]hen employing an abuse-of-discretion standard, we must affirm unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1063 , 125 S.Ct. 2516 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1114 (2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Justin Evans
11th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
When the motion to dismiss the indictment challenges the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, however, “we review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the statutory provisions concerning the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir.) (applying a de novo standard of review in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the interstate-commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (a)), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 336 , 163 L.E…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan
v.
Pascack Valley Hospital, Inc.
No. 04-1452.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2005.
546 U.S. 813
Published

C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.