Legal Opinion

Luli v. Sun Products Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 19, 1979No. 79-83PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.

I

Appellant Sun, in its third proposition of law, contends that federal substantive law instead of Ohio law should be applied to the facts in the instant cause. Appellant asserts that the evolution of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and its jurisdiction over pension funding matters, pursuant to Section 185, Title 29, U.S. Code, is controlling.

It is important to note that the termination of the pension agreement in the cause sub judice, on December 5,1973, was prior to the enactment of ERISA. Section 1144 (b) (1), Title 29, U.S. Code, succinctly states:

“This section shall…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Conner v. Phoenix Steel CorporationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1969
  2. Schofield v. Zion's Co-Op. Mercantile InstitutionUtah Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Moats v. Metropolitan Bank of LimaOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Voigt v. South Side Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Sigman v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1937

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. In Re White Farm Equipment CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
  2. A-T-O, Inc. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
  3. Centennial Insurance v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Bolling v. Clevepak Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Hansen v. White Farm Equipment Co. (In Re White Farm Equipment Co.)District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1984

18 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