Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 13 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 Health Cost Controls v. Ralph Isbell, Father and Next Friend of Tammy Isbell.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Health Cost Controls v. Ralph Isbell, Father and Next Friend of Tammy Isbell Anchor | green | “federal courts may not apply common law theories to alter the express terms of written benefit plans.” | 6 |
| 2 | Health Cost Controls v. Ralph Isbell, Father and Next Friend of Tammy Isbell | green | “the plain language of an erisa plan should be given its literal and natural meaning.” | 4 |
| 3 | Bollman Hat Company v. Kevin T. Root Dale E. Anstine, P.C. Bollman Hat Company, as Sponsor of the Bollman Hat Company Health and Welfare Benefits Plan | green | “necessary to fill in interstitially or otherwise effectuate the erisa statutory pattern enacted in the large by congress.” | 3 |
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.