Legal Opinion
Ciampi v. Hannaford Bros. Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided July 26, 1996PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBERTS, Justice.
Hannaford Bros. Co. appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board awarding its employee Theresa Ciampi weekly benefits based on a computation of her average weekly wage that included fringe benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(H) (Supp.1995). Hannaford contends that section 102(4)(H) is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 832 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1990)). We conclude that section 102(4)(H) does not “relate to” an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA’s preemption…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- FMC Corp. v. HollidaySupreme Court of the United States · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLCSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2018
- City of Lamar v. KoehnColorado Court of Appeals · 1998
- Hincks v. Robert Mitchell Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1999
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. DiringerDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.