Rex A. Shepperd & Steve Edwards v. Boettcher & Co., Inc., 859 F.2d 1472 (10th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Rex A. Shepperd & Steve Edwards v. Boettcher & Co., Inc., 859 F.2d 1472 (10th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tevini v. CHC International, Inc. (flsd, 1996-09-30) · Strongest negative: Ford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (ohnd, 2012-10-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" Ford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
N.D. Ohio · 2012 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Roper v. Pullman Standard, 859 F.2d 1472, 1473 (11th Cir.1988) (dictum) (interpreting a provision other than 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g), but concluding that the shutdown benefit would not be protected under the anti-cutback rule). d.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tevini v. CHC International, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 1996 · confidence medium
Defendant notes that ERISA imposes no obligation on a plan to pay benefits before an employee reaches “normal retirement age.” Roper v. Pullman Standard, 859 F.2d 1472, 1476 (11th Cir.1988) citing Fine v. Semet, 699 F.2d 1091, 1093 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Caterpillar, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Employee Benefits Comm. v. Pascoe, 679 F.2d 1319 , 1321 (9th Cir.1982) (citing Alessi for the proposition that under ERISA "the amount of benefits provided under a pension plan is specifically left to the determination of the parties through the collective bargaining process") (emphasis in original); see also De Nobel v. Vitro Corp., 885 F.2d 1180, 1192 (4th Cir.1989) (citing Alessi for the proposition that ERISA's definitional provisions establish no right "to have benefits payments computed in a given way"); Roper v. Pullman Standard, 859 F.2d 1472, 1476 (11th Cir.1988) (appendix) (citin…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Caterpillar, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Employee Benefits Comm. v. Pascoe, 679 F.2d 1319 , 1321 (9th Cir.1982) (citing Alessi for the proposition that under ERISA “the amount of benefits provided under a pension plan is specifically left to the determination of the parties through the collective bargaining process”) (emphasis in original); see also De Nobel v. Vitro Corp., 885 F.2d 1180, 1192 (4th Cir.1989) (citing Alessi for the proposition that ERISA’s definitional provisions establish no right “to have benefits payments computed in a given way”); Roper v. Pullman Standard, 859 F.2d 1472, 1476 (11th Cir.1988) (append…
examined Cited "see" Harry BELLAS, v. CBS, INC.; Westinghouse Pension Plan, Appellants (10×)
3rd Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roper, 859 F.2d at 1473 .
discussed Cited "see" Blank v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (2×)
M.D. Fla. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roper v. Pullman Standard, 859 F.2d 1472, 1473-74 (11th Cir.1988).
Rex A. SHEPPERD and Steve Edwards, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BOETTCHER & COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee
85-2235.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Oct 28, 1988.
859 F.2d 1472
Richard Miller, Casper, Wyo., Edward J. Pluimer and Peter M. Lancaster, of Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs-appellants., William E. Murane, Jeffrey T. Johnson, and A. Bruce Jones, of Holland & Hart, Denver, Colo., Jack D. Palma, II, of Holland & Hart, Cheyenne, Wyo., for defendant-appellee.
Holloway, Seymour, Baldock.
Published
PER CURIAM.

After examination of the briefs and the record on appeal the court certified questions of state law herein to the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming. Upon further examination of the briefs and the record in light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming on the questions certified to it in this cause, the panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.8. The cause is therefore submitted without oral argument.

Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming entered July 17, 1985, 613 F.Supp. 287, is vacated. The captioned cause is remanded to that Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming filed May 17, 1988, 756 P.2d 182.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.