Legal Opinion
Maiuro v. Federal Express Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided February 3, 1994No. Civ. A. 92-4518 (JFG)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GERRY, Chief Judge.
This is an action brought under sections 104 and 105 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for the disclosure of certain pension-related information. Plaintiff also seeks the $100 per day penalty under section 502 of the Act for the pension administrator’s failure or refusal to provide the information. All parties have moved for summary judgment, and they have stipulated to all of the material facts of the case. For the reasons set forth herein, summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is granted in part and denied in part, and summary judgment in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Iron Workers Local 272 v. BowenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Ursic v. Bethlehem MinesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Bruch v. Firestone Tire And Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Barrowclough v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bilello v. JPMorgan Chase Retirement PlanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Pell v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 2005
- Roeder v. General Signal Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1995
- Hess v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 2000
- Maiuro v. Federal Exp. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.