green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.2 score
“state law is preempted if it regulates the matters regulated by erisa: disclosure, funding, reporting, vesting and enforcement”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Broadnax Mills, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Virginia
state law is preempted if it regulates the matters regulated by erisa: disclosure, funding, reporting, vesting and enforcement
discussed
Cited "see"
Stephen Juzwin and Mary Juzwin, His Wife v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Individually and as Successor to Johnson's Company Carey Canadian Mines Amtorg Trading Corporation and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Flintkote Mines, Ltd. Turner & Newall, P.L.C. John Doe Corporation (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Corporations or Companies, Engaged in the Business of Mining, Manufacturing, Distributing or Supplying Finished and Unfinished Asbestos Products and Fibers to Plaintiffs' Employer Gaf/ruberoid) Judy Doe Corporations (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Legal Entities Who Stand in the Shoes of the John Doe Either as Successor in Interest, Alter Ego, or by Other Equitable Doctrine Which Makes Them Responsible for the John Doe Liability). Amtorg Trading Corp., Third-Party v. Leonard J. Buck, Inc., Flintkote Mines, Ltd., National Gypsum Company and Turner & Newall, P.L.C., Third-Party and Carey Canada, Inc., and Third-Party v. Lac D'AmiAnte Du Quebec Limitee, Individually and as Successor to Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. And Bell Asbestos Mines Limited, and Leonard J. Buck, Inc., Third-Party and Fourth-Party v. Associated Ore & Metal Corp., Ltd., Fourth-Party Appeal of Carey Canada, Inc.
Accord Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 391 (4th Cir.1985) (Ervin, J., dissenting), rev'd on rehearing, 796 F.2d 1546 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 671 , 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986). 39 Turning then to the first factor, we must ask whether our decision overrules clear past precedent on which the parties may have relied or decides an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Juzwin v. Asbestos Corp.
Accord Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381, 391 (4th Cir.1985) (Ervin, J., dissenting), rev’d on rehearing, 796 F.2d 1546 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1018 , 107 S.Ct. 671 , 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dorothy R. Cannon v. The Kroger Co.
(2×)
See Zemonick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 762 F.2d 381 , 397 n. 14 (4th Cir.1985) (Ervin, J., dissenting), rev’d, 796 F.2d 1546 (4th Cir.1986) (en banc) (per curiam) (citing dissenting panel opinion with approval), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 671 , 93 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Polyak
v.
Buford Evans & Sons
v.
Buford Evans & Sons
No. 86-667.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 15, 1986.
Cited by 41 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Virginia (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.