Legal Opinion
Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 22, 1980No. Nos. 79-3165, 79-3178PublishedCited by 330 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellants S. E. Rykoff and Co., et al (Rykoff) appeal the district court’s determination that the anticompetitive forfeiture clause in the S. E. Rykoff & Co. Profit-Sharing Trust Plan (Plan) violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1975). Appellee Hummed cross-appeals for attorneys’ fees. We affirm in part and remand in part.
*448II. FACTS
A. Rykoff’s Profit-Sharing Plan
Rykoff established a profit-sharing plan for its employees in 1966. It contained a forfeiture or “bad boy” provision which…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Helvering v. GowranSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Iron Workers Local 272 v. BowenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Eaves v. PennCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1978
- Landro v. Glendenning Motorways, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- Robert S. Fremont and Henry W. Dybal v. McGraw Company, Robert S. Fremont, Ronald L. McCarthy and Henry W. Dybal v. McGraw CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by330 opinions
- Charles W. Leigh and Ervin F. Dusek, Etc., and George Johnson, Intervening v. Clyde William EngleCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Ursic v. Bethlehem MinesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Virginia Armistead, Cross-Appellants v. Vernitron Corporation Aie--Division of Vernitron Group Insurance Plan, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Max I. Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Don Ray Smith v. Cmta-Iam Pension TrustCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
325 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.