Legal Opinion
Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic Arts
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided March 9, 1994No. 92-2210PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge:
This is a class action brought by a group of employees to recover benefits due them under the terms of a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs contend that they were entitled to severance pay benefits when the company for which they worked was sold. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to severance pay benefits under the terms of their former employer’s severance pay policy because plaintiffs were em*1028ployed by the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Harry Jung, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Fmc Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Norman S. Adams v. Avondale Industries, Inc. Connell Industries, Inc. Connell Limited PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Richard G. Allen v. Adage, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- Holland v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Carol Anstett, Kimberly K. Armstrong, William A. Bauer v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Thomas H. Yochum v. Barnett Banks, Inc. Severance Pay Plan, Employee Benefits Committee of the Barnett Banks, Inc. Severance Pay PlanCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
- Smith v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2007
- Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic ArtsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
- Cantrell v. CurreyDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2005
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.