skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query pension returned 35 results.

1000 PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990)
[Syllabus]
1000 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.
1000 MILWAUKEE BREWERY WORKERS' PENSION PLAN V. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO., 513 U.S. 414 (1995)
[Syllabus]
1000 BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997)
[Syllabus]
1000 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.
1000 PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990)
[Syllabus]
1000 BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND V. FERBAR CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, 522 U.S. 192 (1997)
[Syllabus]
983
[Syllabus]
967 MILWAUKEE BREWERY WORKERS' PENSION PLAN V. JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING CO., 513 U.S. 414 (1995)
[Syllabus]
967 KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC
[Syllabus]
786 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?
786
[Syllabus]
720 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."
680
[Syllabus]
680 BOGGS V. BOGGS, 520 U.S. 833 (1997).
[Syllabus]
588 EASTERN ENTERPRISES V. APFEL, 524 U.S. 498 (1998)
[Syllabus]
588 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.
[Syllabus]
526 INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997)
[Syllabus]
453
[Syllabus]
453 BECK V. PACE INTL UNION
[Syllabus]
453 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.
453 LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996).
[Syllabus]
453
[Syllabus]
453 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.
453 AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN
[Syllabus]
453 ROUSEY V. JACOWAY
[Syllabus]
358 CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA
[Syllabus]
358 KENNEDY V. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR DUPONT SAV. AND INVESTMENT PLAN
[Syllabus]
358
[Syllabus]
358 UNITED STATES V. REOGANIZED CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH, INC., ET AL., 518 U.S. 213 (1996)
[Syllabus]
358 LV. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
[Syllabus]
226 PEACOCK V. THOMAS, 516 U.S. 349 (1996).
[Syllabus]
226 CONKRIGHT V. FROMMERT
[Syllabus]
226
[Syllabus]
226 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.
226 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. V. JACOBSON
[Syllabus]
226 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.
226
[Syllabus]
226 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.