Legal Opinion
Ernest S. Bins v. Exxon Company U.S.A., a Division of Exxon Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 10, 2000No. 98-55662PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge FISHER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ.
FISHER, Circuit Judge:
We must determine in this case the point at which an employer who administers a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S..C. § 1001, et seq., has a duty to inform plan participants that it is considering a proposal to offer more generous retirement incentive benefits.1 Appellant Ernest Bins worked' for Exxon, U.S.A. (“EUSA”), a division of Exxon Corporation (“Exxon”), for 15 years. In the months before he retired, Bins unsuccessfully attempted to…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Varity Corp. v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINKSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Carmen Peralta v. Hispanic Business, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Martinez v. Schlumberger, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISADistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2003
- Karla SCHIKORE, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. BANKAMERICA SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Mathews v. Chevron Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.