Topic: detailed set of rules for determining · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #23512

4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 17 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co..

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. Anchor
scotus · 1995
green “detailed set of rules for determining” 5
2 Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Benefit Fund v. Manweb Servs., Inc.
ca7 · 2018
green “a desire to (1) relieve the financial burden placed upon remaining contributors to a multiemployer fund when one or more of them withdraws from the plan; (2) avoid creating a severe disincentive to new employers entering the plan; and (3) prevent the creation of funding deficien…” 4
3 Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Benefit Fund v. Manweb Servs., Inc.
ca7 · 2018
green “employer withdrawal liability will help to insulate a plan from the adverse effects of a sustained decline in the contribution base.” 4
4 Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Benefit Fund v. Manweb Servs., Inc.
ca7 · 2018
green “the mppaa amended erisa to protect multiemployer plans from these damaging consequences of withdrawal.” 4

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check