Citation network
Rush Prudential Hmo, Inc. Vs. Moran
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 2002
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. 355 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Rush Prudential Hmo, Inc. V. MoranSearch
-
whether a law regulates insurance, this Court starts with a commonsense view of the matter, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
the insurance industry, Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. DedeauxSearch
-
id., at 56, has, up to now, been more straightforward than it is here. Pilot Life, Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. RussellSearch
-
U. S. 134 , and Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSearch
-
This case therefore resembles the claims-procedure rule that the Court sustained in UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. WardSearch
-
plan interpretations may receive deference from a reviewing court, see Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSearch
-
of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Randolph A. Beales of Virginia, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, Darrell v. McGrawSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a), as construed by this Court in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. TaylorSearch
-
ll32(a) only against ERISA plans, administrators, or fiduciaries. See, e. g., Everhart v. AllmericaSearch
-
Garren v. JohnSearch
-
Jass v. PrudentialSearch
-
the sort this Court had held to survive ERISA preemption. See 230 F. 3d, at 972 (citing UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. WardSearch
-
under this Court's holding in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. DedeauxSearch
-
conflicted with the Fifth Circuit's treatment of a similar provision of Texas law in Corporate Health Ins., Inc. v. TexasSearch
-
of these antiphonal clauses, New York State Confer- 365 ence of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. TravelersSearch
-
Co., 514 U. S. 645 , 656 (1995), occupies a substantial share of this Court's time, see, e. g., Egelhoff v. EgelhoffSearch
-
California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. DillinghamSearch
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
id., at 740 (quoting Park 'N Fly v. DollarSearch
-
Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.''' Travelers, supra, at 655 (quoting Rice v. SantaSearch
-
with respect to their insurance practices, the state law survives ERISA. Cf. Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. RoyalSearch
-
g., R. Shouldice, Introduction to Managed Care 450-462 (1991), a feature distinctive to insurance, see, e. g., SEC v. VariableSearch
-
Ferguson, notwithstanding their classification as such for the purpose of state regulation. See, e. g., SEC v. VariableSearch
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. CaliforSearch
-
SEC v. VariableSearch
-
law is not required to satisfy all three McCarran-Ferguson criteria to survive preemption, see UNUM Life Ins. Co. v. WardSearch
-
Pe gram v. HerdrichSearch
-
of the business of 374 insurance. E. g., SEC v. NationalSearch
-
Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453 , 460 (1969). Rush says otherwise, citing Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. PirenoSearch
-
obviates any need to say more under this third factor. Cf. Barnett Bank of Marion Gty., N. A. v. NelsonSearch
-
a statutory provision designed to save state law from being preempted. See American Telephone & Telegraph Go. v. GentralSearch
-
Adams Express Go. v. GroningerSearch
-
a), authorizing civil actions for 376 six specific types of relief.7 In Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. RussellSearch
-
the conditions under which a cause of action may be removed to a federal forum. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. TaylorSearch
-
ordinarily applied when discretionary plan interpretations are challenged. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSearch
-
a). Id., at 148. Two years later we determined in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. TaylorSearch
-
a) in providing a prohibited alternative remedy. In Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSearch
-
but instead bears a resemblance to the claimsprocedure rule that we sustained in UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. WardSearch
-
care, but then modify that obligation by excluding experimental procedures from coverage. See, e. g., Tillery v. HoffmanSearch
-
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. TravelersSearch
-
is properly characterized as a species of mandated-benefit law of the type we approved in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
the contract. This limitation, in turn, implicates a feature of HMO benefit determinations that we described in Pegram v. HerdrichSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial