Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. Vs. Bruch

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 21, 1989

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

39 entries 2 linked 37 unlinked
Show
  1. Pilot Life Ins. Co. Vs. Dedeaux US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1987
  2. Nichols Vs. Eaton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  3. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
    Search
  4. U.S. 101 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
    Search
  5. U.S. 101 (1989) Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
    Search
  6. in cases where fiduciaries and administrators had some bias or adverse interest. Id. at 138-140. See, e.g., Jung v. FMC
    Search
  7. for participants and beneficiaries of benefit plans. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  8. Nachman Corp. v. Pension
    Search
  9. c), a provision of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA). See, e.g., Struble v. New
    Search
  10. Bayles v. Central
    Search
  11. n. 3 (CA5 1979). In light of Congress' general intent to incorporate much of LMRA fiduciary law into ERISA, see NLRB v. Amax
    Search
  12. c) by beneficiaries of LMRA plans who were denied benefits by trustees. See Van Boxel v. Journal
    Search
  13. a), 1132(f). See generally Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search
  14. supra, at 481 U. S. 56 . See also Franchise Tax Board v. Construction
    Search
  15. a)(1)(B), we are guided by principles of trust law. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central
    Search
  16. U. S. 724 -725 (1875) (emphasis added). See also Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central
    Search
  17. Comment b (1959). See also United States v. Mason
    Search
  18. U. S. 113 by looking to the terms of the plan and other manifestations of the parties' intent. See, e.g., Conner v. Phoenix
    Search
  19. Atlantic Steel Co. v. Kitchens
    Search
  20. Sigman v. Rudolph
    Search
  21. exercises any discretionary authority or control. Cf. United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds v. Robinson
    Search
  22. Shaw v. Delta
    Search
  23. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  24. to act on the proposed bill is not conclusive of Congress' views on the appropriate standard of review. Bowsher v. Merck
    Search
  25. Saladino v. I.L
    Search
  26. to vested benefits, Kuntz v. Reese
    Search
  27. U.S. Supreme Court Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
    Search
  28. Jung v. FMC
    Search
  29. Struble v. New
    Search
  30. NLRB v. Amax
    Search
  31. See Van Boxel v. Journal
    Search
  32. Franchise Tax Board v. Construction
    Search
  33. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central
    Search
  34. Conner v. Phoenix
    Search
  35. Cf. United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds v. Robinson
    Search
  36. Bowsher v. Merck
    Search
  37. Kuntz v. Reese
    Search
  38. United States v. Price
    Search
  39. United States v. Mason
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial