Legal Opinion
Fisher v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 31, 2020No. Civil Action No. 2014-1275Published
1Opinion of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOSEPH v. FISHER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 14-1275 (RDM) PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”),
29 U.S.C. § 1001
et seq., “was enacted to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans . . . and to protect contractually defined benefits.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch,
489 U.S. 101, 113
(1989) (citations and quotations omitted). “Toward this end, Title IV of ERISA,
29 U.S.C. § 1301
et seq., created a…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.