green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Union Labor Life Insurance v. Olsten Corp. Health & Welfare Benefit Plan
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 as authority (quoted)
NEWKIRK v. SENTMAN
the supreme court has determined that congress intended the complete-preemption doctrine to apply to state law causes of action which fit within the scope of erisa's civil-enforcement provisions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Holmes v. Acceptance Casualty Insurance
See Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc., 344 F.3d 458, 462-63 (5th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 335 , 163 L.Ed.2d 48 (2005); Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 649 (5th Cir.2003); Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir.2002); Hart, 199 F.3d at 246.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bourne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
See Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc., 344 F.3d 458, 462-63 (5th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 335 , 163 L.Ed.2d 48 (2005); Travis, 326 F.3d at 649 ; Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir.2002); Hart, 199 F.3d at 246; Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F.3d 694, 699 (5th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Marvin Cox, III
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
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…
Alternate Power Source, Inc.
v.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
v.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
No. 04-1423.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2005.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.