29 U.S.C. § 302
GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATES.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1965–2019 · leading case: Bell v. Emp. Sec. Benefit Ass'n, 437 F. Supp. 382 (D. Kan. 1977).
Bell v. Emp. Sec. Benefit Ass'n, 437 F. Supp. 382 (D. Kan. 1977). “*395 The term “employees’ beneficiary association” was used in ERISA’s predecessor, the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act, as amended by the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act Amendments of 1962, 29 U.S.C. § 302 (a)(3) (repealed effective January 1, 1975).”
J. P. Murphy v. Inexco Oil Co., J. P. Murphy v. Inexco Oil Co., 611 F.2d 570 (5th Cir. 1980). “” 29 U.S.C. § 302 (a)(2) (repealed) (emphasis supplied).”
Deborah Malivuk v. Ameripark, LLC, 694 F. App'x 705 (11th Cir. 2017). “52 was not entitled to Chevron deference because 29 U.S.C. § 302 (m) was not ambiguous and thus there was no" gap to be filled by regulation.”
Pinkie A. Brown v. Ret. Comm. of the Briggs & Stratton Ret. Plan, & Briggs & Stratton Corp., 797 F.2d 521 (7th Cir. 1986). “1982), described the "structural defect” test in this way: Federal court review of trust fund plans derives from 29 U.S.C. § 302 (e) [of the National Labor-Management Relations Act, which has provisions similar to the relevant sections of ERISA], and is limited to consideration…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 577 F. Supp. 1029 (D.N.J. 1982). “For the definitions, see 29 U.S.C. § 302 (a)(1) and (2) (WPPDA) and 29 U.”
United States v. Dominick Santiago, 528 F.2d 1130 (2d Cir. 1976). “29 U.S.C. § 302 (a)(1) provided as follows: The term “employee welfare benefit plan” means any plan, fund, or program which is communicated or its benefits described in writing to the employees, and which was heretofore or is hereafter established by an employer or by an…”
Lamb v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 509 F. Supp. 560 (D.N.J. 1980). “The policy was issued to Overlook. Overlook, as the employer, gathered the employees’ contributions by payroll deduction, added its own contribution, and remitted the premiums to CGLIC.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Michigan Conf. of Teamsters Welfare Fund Local 243, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Afl-Cio, 13 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 1993). “Formerly 29 U.S.C. § 302 (c)(5). 2 . Section 7 rights explicitly include "the right to .”
Hurd v. Hutnik, 419 F. Supp. 630 (D.N.J. 1976). “If they do, the Court must determine whether those vested rights attach only to such monies as are in the fund, as the defendant employers contend, or whether the retired employees have a vested right to a pension for life.”
United States v. John J. Daley, 454 F.2d 505 (1st Cir. 1972). “Finally, the defendant urges at some length that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Fund was an “employee pension benefit fund” as described in 29 U.S.C. § 302 (a) (2) (1970). We do not think it necessary or helpful to deal individually with each alleged…”
Partick Edwin Golden, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Kentile Floors, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross, 512 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1975). “The minutes refer specifically to Section 3, Subdivision 6 of the former Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 302 (a)(6), which defined a “participant” as “any employee or former employee of an employer or any member of an employee organization who is or may become eligible to receive a…”
Juan Miranda v. R. A. Audia, 681 F.2d 1124 (9th Cir. 1982). “Federal court review of trust fund plans derives from 29 U.S.C. § 302 (e), and is limited to consideration of “structural deficiencies.”
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.