Legal Opinion
Moriarity v. United Technologies Corp. Represented Employees Retirement Plan
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided November 20, 1996No. Civil 3:95cv2578 (PCD)PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DORSEY, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Moriarity, relying on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B), 1132(a)(2), seeks a determination of his right to recover benefits allegedly due to him under Defendant United Technologies Corporation Represented Employees Retirement Plan (“Plan”). Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
The…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- John C. Donahue v. Windsor Locks Board of Fire Commissioners, John R. Colli, Jr., Russell C. Gabrielson, and John R. Colli, IIICourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Sally J. Burke v. Kodak Retirement Income Plan and Kodak Retirement Income Plan CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Layaou v. Xerox Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Manginaro v. Welfare Fund of Local 771, IATSEDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Michael Moriarity, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. United Tech. Corp. Represented Employees Retirement Plan, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Amara v. Cigna Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2008
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.