Legal Opinion
McIntosh v. Pacific Holding Co.
District Court, D. Nebraska
Decided June 18, 1996No. 4:CV95-3123PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KOPF, District Judge.
Based upon stipulated facts, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. This case requires me to determine the applicability of the so-called “common fund” attorney fee doctrine to a health benefits plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). See 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
Specifically, Plaintiffs (a plan participant and her lawyers) ask me to determine whether a health benefits plan governed by ERISA and the employer which created the plan are liable for an attorney fee allegedly earned when the plan participant…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stereo Gema, Inc. v. Magnadyne Corp.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1996
- IBP, Inc. v. FoustDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1997
- McINTOSH v. Pacific Holding Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1998