Legal Opinion
Continental Can Company, Inc. v. Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided October 17, 1990No. 89-3759PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
Would a company whose customer paid 50.1% of the bill think it had received “substantially all” of the price? Not likely. Nonetheless, Continental Can Company insists that when a majority of a pension fund’s assets come from firms engaged in the trucking business, contributing employers qualify for a treatment that is available only if “substantially all of the contributions required under the plan are made by employers primarily engaged in the long and short haul trucking industry”, 29 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2).
When Continental Can employed truck drivers to transport…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Regional Rail Reorganization Act CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Rodriguez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Rose v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Bostock v. Clayton CountySupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. American Family Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Kenneth T. Hayward, and William B. Krause, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- Nancy Strickland v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Intec USA v. Engle, JonathanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.