Cases pin-citing Hendon · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Hendon

Cases pin-citing Hendon

Raymond B. Yates, MD, PC Profit Sharing Plan v. Hendon  ·  2004  ·  23 pinpoint citations from 11 cases, 12 distinct passages.

LaRocque v. Life Insurance Company of North America  ·  2025-09-08  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 541 U.S. at 1
“[A] plan whose sole beneficiaries are the company’s 19 owners cannot qualify as a plan under ERISA.”
Blake v. Life Insurance Company of North America  ·  2021-09-27  ·  W.D. Kentucky  ·  pin 541 U.S. at 1
“The purpose of ERISA preemption was to avoid conflicting federal and state regulation and to create a nationally uniform administration of employee benefit plans.”
Sysco Oklahoma LLC v. Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund  ·  2021-08-23  ·  W.D. Oklahoma  ·  pin 541 U.S. at 1
“[W]e have also held that an employer is entitled to repayment if it shows that the refusal to repay was arbitrary or capricious and ‘the equities favor restitution.’”
Richardson v. IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund  ·  2020-07-06  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 541 U.S. at 1
“The trial court 13 should consider whatever factors it may reasonably believe shed light on the fairness of 14 reimbursement, and weigh those factors against the backdrop of general equitable 15 considerations and the guiding principles and purposes of ERISA.”
Linda Holt v. John Griffin  ·  2017-07-28  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  pin 541 U.S. at 1
“We review an award of restitution for an abuse of discretion.”
Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Koresko  ·  2016-04-05  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 124 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Plans that cover only sole owners or partners and their spouses, the regulation instructs, fall outside [ERISA’s] domain.”
RES-GA Dawson, LLC v. Rogers (In re Rogers)  ·  2015-09-17  ·  N.D. Georgia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 124 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Plans that cover only sole owners or partners and their spouses, the regulation instructs, fall outside Title I’s domain.”
VFS Financing, Inc. v. Elias-Savion-Fox LLC  ·  2014-12-01  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 124 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Treating working owners as participants [in an ERISA-governed plan] also avoids the anomaly that the same plan will be controlled by discrete regimes: federal-law governance for thé nonowner employees; state-law governance for the working owner.”
House v. Amer Untd Life Ins  ·  2007-09-21  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  pin 541 U.S. at 1
“Plans that cover only sole owners or partners and their spouses . . . fall outside [ERISA's] 10 domain.”
House v. American United Life Insurance  ·  2007-09-04  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 124 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"Plans that cover only sole owners or partners and their spouses . . . fall outside [ERISA's] domain."
Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Sharpless  ·  2004-04-09  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 124 L. Ed. 2d at 40
“ERISA’s text contains multiple indications that Congress intended working owners to qualify as plan participants”