Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Mecca, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Georgia
Decided June 26, 1996No. CV 495-71PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANGLE, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought the above-captioned action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., seeking benefits under a group health plan sponsored and administered by defendant, Mecca, Inc., d/b/a Peacock’s Paint Center, and insured by defendant, Provident Indemnity Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff settled her claims against Provident Indemnity Life Insurance Company and a bench trial was held on her remaining claims against Mecca, Inc. Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth below, see…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Schleibaum v. Kmart Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
- David Hager v. Todd G. RowanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018
- Holford v. Exhibit Design ConsultantsDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2002
- Russell v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2001
- Miles-Hickman v. David Powers Homes, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2008
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.