Crosby v. Bowater Inc. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Great Northern Paper, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ENSLEN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Frank J. Crosby’s Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees. Defendants Bo-water Incorporated Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Great Northern Paper, Inc. and Bowater Incorporated have opposed the Motion. The Motion has been fully and extensively briefed and the Court finds that further briefing or argument is unnecessary to resolve the Motion. For the reasons which follow, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
This action was brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Blanchard v. BergeronSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Invessys, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2004
- In re Broadwing, Inc. Erisa LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2006
- Heng v. Rotech Medical Corp.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- Anderson v. WilsonDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2005
- Poly-Flex Construction, Inc. v. Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo, Ltd.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.