Citation network
Egelhoff Vs. Egelhoff
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 2001
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. 141 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Egelhoff V. EgelhoffSearch
-
Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
as well as to the nature of the state law's effect on ERISA plans. California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. DillinghamSearch
-
and paying benefits impose precisely the burden that ERISA pre-emption was intended to avoid. Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
W A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Jan Graham of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, and Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
have disagreed about whether statutes like that of Washington are pre-empted by ERISA. Compare, e. g., Manning v. HayesSearch
-
and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. HanslipSearch
-
F.2d 904 (CAlO 1991) (same), with, e. g., Emard v. HughesSearch
-
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. TravelersSearch
-
see, e. g., Morales v. TransSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. DillinghamSearch
-
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
on to beneficiaries, thereby thwarting ERISA's objective of efficient plan administration. Cf Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
on plan administrators-burdens ultimately borne by the beneficiaries. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSearch
-
a presumption against pre-emption in areas of traditional state regulation such as family law. See, e. g., Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
to find state family law pre-empted when it conflicts with ERISA or relates to ERISA plans. See, e. g., Boggs v. BoggsSearch
-
every State-is well established in the law and has a long historical pedigree predating ERISA. See, e. g., Riggs v. PalmerSearch
-
Ante this page (concurring opinion). Our more recent ERISA cases are consistent with this approach. See De Buono v. NYSA-ILASearch
-
See also Boggs v. BoggsSearch
-
to comply with both the Washington statute and federal law. Geier v. AmericanSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
Travelers, 514 U. S., at 655 (quoting Rice v. SantaSearch
-
U. S. 572 , 581 (1979) (quoting United States v. YazellSearch
-
in any event when they answer such routine legal questions as whether amounts due are subject to garnishment, Mackey v. LanierSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 19 (1987) (quoting Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
may lie, not in the occasional constitutional effort to trim Congress' commerce power at its edges, United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
statutory cases where courts interpret the mass of technical detail that is the ordinary diet of the law, AT&T Corp. v. IowaSearch
-
Syllabus Egelhoff V. EgelhoffSearch
-
Manning v. HayesSearch
-
Emard v. HughesSearch
-
Morales v. TransSearch
-
Cf Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
Riggs v. PalmerSearch
-
See De Buono v. NYSA-ILASearch
-
Geier v. AmericanSearch
-
Rice v. SantaSearch
-
Mackey v. LanierSearch
-
Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
AT&T Corp. v. IowaSearch
-
United States v. MorrisonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial