Legal Opinion
Henglein v. Informal Plan for Plant Shutdown Benefits for Salaried Employees
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 8, 1992No. Nos. 91-3379, 91-3413PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
MANSMANN, Circuit Judge.
We write to clarify that, in an ERISA action, a plaintiffs failure to prove the existence of an employee benefit plan, though it results in a dismissal of the claim, does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to enter a judgment on the merits. Additionally, we examine the standard for determining, in the absence of a formal plan document, whether an informal employee benefit plan exists. Because the district court used a vague standard to conclude a plan did not exist, and erroneously ruled that the absence of a plan deprived…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Donovan v. DillinghamCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Blau v. Del Monte Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- Elmore v. Cone Mills Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Butero v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- George W. Henglein v. Colt Industries Operating CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Elmore v. Cone Mills Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.