Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILDEA, Justice.
The question presented in this case is whether state courts have subject matter jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to review a plan administrator’s determination that a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is not “qualified” for purposes of ERISA. The district court held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to review such decisions by plan administrators. The court of appeals reversed, holding that federal jurisdiction over such decisions is exclusive. Because we conclude that state and…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Ankenbrandt Ex Rel. L. R. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Gregory v. AshcroftSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. MenascheSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- MacK v. KuckenmeisterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict SchmidSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Marriage of Angell v. AngellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.