Legal Opinion
Mitnik v. Cannon
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 21, 1992No. Civ. A. 91-6440PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
BARTLE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Stanley and Barbara Mitnik (“Trustees”) have brought this action in their capacity as Trustees on behalf of Bon-nell Dress Company Pension Fund and Bonnell Manufacturing Company Inc. Pension Fund (“Pension Funds”). The Trustees instituted this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. The Trustees also allege state law claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. LingleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Werner v. Plater-ZyberkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Cannon v. ShellerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- Mitnik v. CannonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Mitnik v. CannonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993