Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query pension returned 35 results.

	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND V. HEINZ [Syllabus] Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.
	MILWAUKEE BREWERY WORKERS' PENSION PLAN V. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO., 513 U.S. 414 (1995) [Syllabus]
	BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997) [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL LABORERS’ PENSION FUND V. HEINZ [Syllabus] Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.
	PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MILWAUKEE BREWERY WORKERS' PENSION PLAN V. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO., 513 U.S. 414 (1995) [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., P.C. PROFIT SHARINGPLAN V. HENDON [Syllabus] Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
	[Syllabus]
	HARRIS TRUST AND SAV. BANK V. SALOMONSMITH BARNEY INC. [Syllabus] Whether a non-fiduciary party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan that engages in a prohibited transaction, as defined in Section 406(a) (1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (""ERISA""), 29 U.S.C. 1106(a)(1), with the plan can be sued under ERISA 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), for ""appropriate equitable relief,"" including restitution."
	[Syllabus]
	BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). [Syllabus]
	EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO. [Syllabus]
	INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BECK V. PACE INTL UNION [Syllabus]
	BARNHART V. PEABODY COAL CO. [Syllabus] Although the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operator or related entity, initial assignments made after that date are valid despite their untimeliness.
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	EGELHOFF V. EGELHOFF [Syllabus] The Washington statute that provides that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset is revoked automatically upon divorce has a connection with ERISA plans and is therefore expressly pre-empted by ERISA.
	AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN [Syllabus]
	ROUSEY V. JACOWAY [Syllabus]
	CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA [Syllabus]
	KENNEDY V. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAV. AND INVESTMENT PLAN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996) [Syllabus]
	LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus]
	PEACOCK V. THOMAS, 516 U.S. 349 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CONKRIGHT V. FROMMERT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HATTER [Syllabus] The judgment below is reversed insofar as the Federal Circuit found that the application of Medicare taxes to the salaries of federal judges taking office before 1983 violated the Compensation Clause, but affirmed insofar as that court found the application of Social Security taxes to the salaries of judges taking office before 1984 unconstitutional; a 1984 salary increase received by federal judges did not cure the latter violation.
	HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WHITE MOUNTAINAPACHE TRIBE [Syllabus] Public Law 86-392 gives rise to Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over respondent Tribe's suit for money damages against the United States for breach of a fiduciary duty to manage Fort Apache land and improvements held in trust for the Tribe but occupied by the Government.
	[Syllabus]
	DEVLIN V. SCARDELLETTI [Syllabus] Nonnamed class members who have objected in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening in the lawsuit.