Legal Opinion
Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 7, 1994No. 93-35242PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Bruce and Betty Chadwick, Dean and Lorna Corder.(the “Beneficiaries”), Baugh Construction and Engineering Company Profit Sharing Plan (the “Plan”), and Gary Baugh appeal the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Howard Johnson & Company (“Howard Johnson & Co.”). The attorney’s fees at issue were awarded under 29 U.S-.C. § 1132(g)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) after the Plan’s and the Beneficiaries’ unsuccessful ERISA action against Howard Johnson & Co. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Don Ray Smith v. Cmta-Iam Pension TrustCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- William E. Moten, Sr. v. Bricklayers, Masons And Plasterers International Union Of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
- Carpenters Southern California Administrative Corp. v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In Re VIII South Michigan AssociatesUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
- Dean Corder v. Howard Johnson & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994