Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Varity Corp. Vs. Howe

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 19, 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

68 entries 4 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Connecticut Nat. Bank Vs. Germain US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1992
  2. Pilot Life Ins. Co. Vs. Dedeaux US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1987
  3. Curtiss-wright Corp. Vs. Schoonejongen US Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1995
  4. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. Vs. Darden US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1992
  5. U.S. 489 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Varity Corp. V. Howe
    Search
  6. equitable relief for breach of fiduciary obligations. This Court's decision in Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  7. a representative capacity, seeking to compel a dishonest fiduciary to return embezzled funds to the plan). See McLeod v. Oregon
    Search
  8. Simmons v. Southern
    Search
  9. of Appeals, such as the Eighth Circuit in this case, have not read any such limitation into the statute. See Bixler v. Central
    Search
  10. Anweiler v. American
    Search
  11. most benefit plans before ERISA's enactment. See Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central
    Search
  12. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
    Search
  13. U. S. 101 , 110-111 (1989) (quoting Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search
  14. with Curtiss- Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen
    Search
  15. U. S. 73 , 78-81 (1995), and Mertens v. Hewitt
    Search
  16. employer is, in some circumstances, the default plan administrator) with NLRB v. Amax
    Search
  17. a legal meaning to which, we normally presume, Congress meant to refer. See, e. g., Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden
    Search
  18. Peoria Union Stock Yards Co. v. Penn
    Search
  19. In Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  20. general provision when doing so would undermine limitations created by a more specific provision. See, e. g., Morales v. Trans
    Search
  21. HCSC-Laundry v. United
    Search
  22. Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra
    Search
  23. Moore v. Reynolds
    Search
  24. Birmingham v. SogenSwiss
    Search
  25. THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR and JUSTICE SCALIA join, dissenting. In Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  26. Mertens v. Hewitt
    Search
  27. Associates, 508 U. S. 248 , 251 (1993) (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension
    Search
  28. M 0 rales v. Trans
    Search
  29. a comprehensive scheme and has deliberately targeted specific problems with specific solutions. See HCSC-Laundry v. United
    Search
  30. between them. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
    Search
  31. U. S. 249 , 253 (1992) (quoting Wood v. United
    Search
  32. Russell, supra, at 146 (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension
    Search
  33. Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S., at 361). See also Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  34. Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos
    Search
  35. Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.''' Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
    Search
  36. U. S. 101 , 114 (1989) (quoting United States v. Price
    Search
  37. U. S. 304 , 313 (1960)). See also Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  38. disclosure of specified information, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. See Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  39. iduciary status under ERISA generally attends the management of 'plan assets.''' John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Harris
    Search
  40. fiduciary status can be predicated to some extent on interactions with individual plan participants. 6 See NLRB v. Amax
    Search
  41. recognized that Congress borrowed from the common law of trusts in enacting ERISA, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
    Search
  42. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  43. see Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First
    Search
  44. Adams v. Avondale
    Search
  45. s fiduciary obligations because they do not involve discretionary administration of the plan. See CurtissWright Corp. v. Schoonejongen
    Search
  46. Borst v. Chevron
    Search
  47. at 502. Relying on trust treatises and our decision in Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central
    Search
  48. is a fiduciary. 14 The majority's reliance on Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central
    Search
  49. Syllabus Varity Corp. V. Howe
    Search
  50. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial