Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Eichorn v. AT & T Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided May 31, 2007No. 05-5461Published

1ConcurrenceAmbro, Circuit Judge

I vote to deny rehearing en banc because I believe the panel decision correctly applies Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 256, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993); Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 515, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996); and Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 210, 122 S.Ct. 708, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002). As the panel concludes, the focus of those opinions — particularly Mertens and Great-West — is that any make-whole monetary relief that is not directly traceable to some wrongly held property is properly characterized as legal, not…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Varity Corp. v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Aetna Health Inc. v. DavilaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Mertens v. Hewitt AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. KnudsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

10 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