29 U.S.C. § 1139
Separability
If any provision of this chapter, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1984–2008 · leading case: S. Alaska Carpenters Health & Sec. Trust Fund v. Jones, 177 P.3d 844 (Alaska 2008).
S. Alaska Carpenters Health & Sec. Trust Fund v. Jones, 177 P.3d 844 (Alaska 2008). “2d 474 (1990), the United States Supreme Court described the purpose underlying section 514(a): Section 514(a) was intended to ensure that plans and plan sponsors would be subject to a uniform body of benefits law; the goal was to minimize the administrative and financial burden…”
Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, 762 F.2d 1124 (1st Cir. 1984). “29 U.S.C. § 1139 . The MPPAA’s status as an amendment to a law which already contained a severance provision shows Congress’ intent to make its provisions severable.”
Gerosa v. Savasta, 189 F. Supp. 2d 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “§§ 502(a)(2), (3), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1139 (a)(2), (3). C. Jurisdiction and Preemption The United States district courts have “exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under [ERISA],” without respect to amounts in *142 controversy or citizenship of parties, whether brought by the…”
Gottlieb Mem'l Hosp. v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp., 474 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1139 (a) (“A civil action may be brought by (1) a participant or beneficiary .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.