Legal Opinion

Nos. 93-55478, 93-55695

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 15, 1995No. 1493Published

1Opinion of the Court

62 F.3d 1493

33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 181, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6414,

95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,955,

Pens. Plan Guide P 23911U

Pano CONCHA, M.D. and Marta Concha, as fiduciaries and on

behalf of all the participants and beneficiaries of The Pano

Concha, M.D., a Professional Corporation Defined Benefit

Pension Plan; The Pano Concha, M.D., a Professional

Corporation Defined Benefit Plan, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Philip D. LONDON; London & Lichtenberg, an accountancy

corporation; Matthew Lichtenberg; London, Caldwell &

Lewinson; Alan B. Lewinson; Thomas F. Caldwell, Jr.;

London & Lewinson; Caldwell & Lewinson;…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Mertens v. Hewitt AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Howard Wool v. Tandem Computers Incorporated, Robert C. Marshall, Henry v. Morgan, and James G. TreybigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  5. Hiram Ash v. Eugene CvetkovCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984

36 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