Legal Opinion
Wayne v. Pacific Bell
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 30, 1999No. 97-56546PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge FLETCHER, Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs are six former Pacific Bell employees who claim their employer induced them to retire under an early retirement incentive program by failing to disclose that it was seriously considering offering a more favorable program. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants Pacific Bell and Pacific Telesis Group (collectively “Pacific”)1 on their claim for equitable re*984lief for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Drennan v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- Fischer v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Williams v. Caterpillar, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Ernest S. Bins v. Exxon Company U.S.A., a Division of Exxon Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hudson v. General Dynamics Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2000
- Nancy Wayne Mary Ann Acaldo Barbara Garvin Karen Kendrick Doris Ryan Carol Jane Tidwell v. Pacific Bell, a Corporation Pacific Telesis GroupCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999