Legal Opinion
Reid v. Gruntal & Co., Inc.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided May 17, 1991No. 90-0062PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT GRUNTAL’S MOTION IN LIMINE
GENE CARTER, Chief Judge.
Defendant Gruntal & Co., Inc. (hereinafter Gruntal) moves to exclude all evidence regarding consequential damages which may be submitted by Plaintiff Rosemary Reid at trial. This motion in limine presents the question of whether the phrase “other appropriate equitable relief” contained in 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(3)(B) may be interpreted to permit the recovery of consequential damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (hereinafter ERISA). 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
I. THE STATUTORY…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- The Sommers Drug Stores Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust, Cross-Appellant v. Corrigan Enterprises, Inc. And Walter N. Corrigan, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Utility Workers, Local 369 v. NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- OSCAR A. SAMOS, MD v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1991
- Pension Plan of Public Service Co. v. KPMG Peat MarwickDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1993
- Montner v. Interfaith Medical CenterCivil Court of the City of New York · 1993
- Iwans v. Aetna Life Ins. Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.