Citation network
Fmc Corp. Vs. Holliday
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1990
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
-
U.S. 52 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court FMC Corp. v. HollidaySearch
-
U.S. 52 (1990) FMC Corporation v. HollidaySearch
-
such a plan. See Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
and the insurers' insurance contracts. This reading of the deemer clause is consistent with Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of the presumption that Congress does not intend to preempt areas of traditional state regulation, see Jones v. RathSearch
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
b)(2)(B), exempts the Plan from state subrogation laws. The Court of Appeals, citing Northern Group Services, Inc. v. AutoSearch
-
construed ERISA's deemer clause to protect self-funded plans from all state insurance regulation. See, e.g., Baxter v. LynnSearch
-
Reilly v. BlueSearch
-
Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141 , 458 U. S. 152 -153 (1982), in turn quoting Jones v. RathSearch
-
See also Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. DollarSearch
-
b)(2)(B) (deemer clause). We indicated in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
an employee benefit plan. We made clear in Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
clause to state laws that risk subjecting plan administrators to conflicting state regulations. See, e.g., Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
plans, producing inefficiencies that employers might offset with decreased benefits. See Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
frustrate plan administrators' continuing obligation to calculate uniform benefit levels nationwide. Accord, Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
it is aimed at it. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. DedeauxSearch
-
insurer. Page 498 U. S. 62 Our reading of the deemer clause is consistent with Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of the insurer but also regulation of the substantive terms of insurance contracts. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Page 498 U. S. 65 Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
It does not, for example, preempt general state garnishment rules insofar as they relate to ERISA plans. Mackey v. LanierSearch
-
state rules. In my opinion, this presumption played an important role in our decisions in Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1987), and Mackey v. LanierSearch
-
in Missouri, and thereby had subjected itself to the regulations contained in the Missouri insurance code. Missouri v. MonsantoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court FMC Corp. v. HollidaySearch
-
FMC Corporation v. HollidaySearch
-
See Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Jones v. RathSearch
-
Northern Group Services, Inc. v. AutoSearch
-
Baxter v. LynnSearch
-
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
See Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
Accord, Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. DedeauxSearch
-
See Jones v. RathSearch
-
Mackey v. LanierSearch
-
and Mackey v. LanierSearch
-
Missouri v. MonsantoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial