Legal Opinion
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 27, 2013No. Nos. A10-2219, A11-0683, A11-0684PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.
The issue presented by this case is whether a state court domestic relations order served on respondents Wilson McShane Corporation as administrators of the Twin Cities Carpenters and Joiners Pension Fund, and the Twin Cities Carpenters and Joiners Pension Fund (collectively “the Plan”) by appellant Patricia Langston (“Langston”) is a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Our resolution of this narrow issue depends on our resolution of the broader issue of whether surviving spouse…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boggs v. BoggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Carmona v. CarmonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Vera Mae Hopkins v. At & T Global Information Solutions Company, Formerly Known as Ncr CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
- Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Oddino v. OddinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of StearnsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- Dahl v. Aerospace Employees' Retirement Plan of the Aerospace Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2015
- National Council on Teacher Quality v. Minnesota State Colleges & UniversitiesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
- Cowser-Griffin v. Griffin (ORDER)Supreme Court of Virginia · 2015
- Warren v. DinterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.