Citation network
Lockheed Corp. Vs. Spink
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1996
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. 882 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Lockheed Corp. Et Al. V. SpinkSearch
-
a)(1) violation warranting relief. Cf. Peacock v. ThomasSearch
-
the rule that this Court announced with respect to the amendment of welfare benefit plans in Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSearch
-
Landgraf v. USISearch
-
plans. Nor does ERISA mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan. Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
will not be left emptyhanded once employers have guaranteed them certain benefits. As we said in Nachman Corp. v. PensionSearch
-
Commissioner v. KeystoneSearch
-
a)(1) to warrant relief under the enforcement provisions. Cf. Peacock v. ThomasSearch
-
of ERISA''') (quoting Mertens v. HewittSearch
-
CA9 1995). For that same proposition, several Courts of Appeals have relied on statements in Mertens v. HewittSearch
-
id., at 262. See, e. g., Reich v. StanglSearch
-
Landwehr v. DuPreeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Reich v. ComptonSearch
-
the category of fiduciaries. As we said with respect to the amendment of welfare benefit plans in Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSearch
-
Id., at 78 (citing Adams v. AvondaleSearch
-
actions, they do not act as fiduciaries, 514 U. S., at 78, but are analogous to the settlors of a trust, see Johnson v. Georgia-PacificSearch
-
A). Siskind v. SperrySearch
-
true that amending or terminating a plan ... cannot be an act of plan 'management' or 'administration.''' Varity Corp. v. HoweSearch
-
See also Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
deficiency), the act of amending a pension plan does not trigger ERISA's fiduciary provisions. 4 See, e. g., Siskind v. SperrySearch
-
Fletcher v. KrogerSearch
-
Hozier v. MidwestSearch
-
Sutton v. WeirtonSearch
-
risk of plan underfunding because they are struck with plan insiders, presumably not at arm's length. See Commissioner v. KeystoneSearch
-
does not address what an employer can and cannot ask an employee to do in return for benefits. See generally Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
Two Terms ago, we set forth the proper approach for determining the retroactive effect of a statute in Landgraf v. USISearch
-
Spink as a member of the Plan as of December 25, 1988, the first day of Lockheed's 1988 plan year. 897 graf v. USISearch
-
any general inferences that might be drawn from the substantive provisions of the statute. See generally Morales v. TransSearch
-
Fourco Glass Co. v. TransmirraSearch
-
Syllabus Lockheed Corp. Et Al. V. SpinkSearch
-
Cf. Peacock v. ThomasSearch
-
Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Nachman Corp. v. PensionSearch
-
Mertens v. HewittSearch
-
Reich v. StanglSearch
-
Adams v. AvondaleSearch
-
Johnson v. Georgia-PacificSearch
-
Siskind v. SperrySearch
-
See Commissioner v. KeystoneSearch
-
Morales v. TransSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial