Legal Opinion

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 6, 1995No. 93-1935PublishedCited by 626 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor

Section 402(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 875, 29 U. S. C. § 1102(b)(3), requires that every employee benefit plan provide “a procedure for amending such plan, and for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan.” This case presents the question whether the standard provision in many employer-provided benefit plans stating that “The Company reserves the right at any time to amend the plan” sets forth an amendment procedure that satisfies § 402(b)(3). We hold that it does.

I

For many years, petitioner Curtiss-Wright voluntarily…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Norman S. Adams v. Avondale Industries, Inc. Connell Industries, Inc. Connell Limited PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
  3. Huber v. Casablanca Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990

3Cited by626 opinions

  1. Varity Corp. v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  3. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. Robert D. Sprague, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
  5. CIGNA Corp. v. AmaraSupreme Court of the United States · 2011

621 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API