Citation network
Cigna Corp. Vs. Amara
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 02, 2011
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
-
Et Al. Syllabus October Term, 2010 Cigna Corp. V. AmaraSearch
-
Sereboff v. MidSearch
-
Thomas, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. CIGNA Corp. v. AmaraSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Cigna Corp. V. AmaraSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-804 Cigna Corporation, Et Al., Petitioners V. JaniceSearch
-
a proper notice, prior to the 2001 amendment that made this power explicit. 559 F. Supp. 2d, at 207 (citing Frommert v. ConkrightSearch
-
a)(1)(B), regardless, cf. Varity Corp. v. HoweSearch
-
F. Supp. 2d, at 205 (citing Sereboff v. MidSearch
-
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. KnudsonSearch
-
and Mertens v. HewittSearch
-
language in deciding what those terms are, i.e. , what the language means. See UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. WardSearch
-
the power to set plan terms indirectly by including them in the summary plan descriptions. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
ERISA typically treats as a trustee) about the terms of a plan (which ERISA typically treats as a trust). See LaRue v. DeWolffSearch
-
as written) is a traditional power of an equity court, not a court of law, and was used to prevent fraud. See Baltzer v. RaleighSearch
-
Hearne v. MarineSearch
-
Bradford v. UnionSearch
-
Princess Lida of Thurn and Taxis v. ThompsonSearch
-
see also Manhattan Bank of Memphis v. WalkerSearch
-
is so ordered. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. CIGNA Corp. v. AmaraSearch
-
Scalia, J., Concurring in Judgment Cigna Corp. V. AmaraSearch
-
Beck v. PACESearch
-
wrong. An SPD is separate from a plan, and cannot amend a plan unless the plan so provides. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. KnudsonSearch
-
see Cooper Industries, Inc. v. AviallSearch
-
case presents no exceptional reason to do so. To the contrary, it presents additional reasons not to do so. Mertens v. HewittSearch
-
also not obvious that the relief sought in this case would constitute an equitable surcharge allowable under Mertens v. HewittSearch
-
Associates , 508 U. S. 248 (1993). Cf. Knieriem v. GroupSearch
-
Petitioners V. JaniceSearch
-
Frommert v. ConkrightSearch
-
See UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. WardSearch
-
See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSearch
-
See LaRue v. DeWolffSearch
-
See Baltzer v. RaleighSearch
-
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. AviallSearch
-
Mertens v. HewittSearch
-
Cf. Knieriem v. GroupSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial