54 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 274,949 times 368 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 239,938 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 219,512 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 114,772 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Firestone Tire Rubber Co. v. Bruch
489 U.S. 101 (1989) Cited 8,902 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that a denial of ERISA benefits "is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan"
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila
542 U.S. 200 (2004) Cited 2,764 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that states cannot create new causes of action that conflict with ERISA's " ‘interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,’ " located in § 502 of ERISA
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor
481 U.S. 58 (1987) Cited 4,493 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1144 preempts state common law claims
Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
481 U.S. 41 (1987) Cited 3,727 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that civil enforcement scheme codified at § 502 is not to be supplemented by state law remedies
Varity Corp. v. Howe
516 U.S. 489 (1996) Cited 2,405 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that ERISA fiduciaries may have duties to disclose information about plan prospects that they have no duty, or even power, to change
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
463 U.S. 85 (1983) Cited 3,540 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 334,280 times 159 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,609 times 174 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 1002 - Definitions
29 U.S.C. § 1002 Cited 11,165 times 60 Legal Analyses
Holding that ERISA is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans
Section 1144 - Other laws
29 U.S.C. § 1144 Cited 7,028 times 53 Legal Analyses
Saving clause
Section 1140 - Interference with protected rights
29 U.S.C. § 1140 Cited 2,089 times 15 Legal Analyses
Making it unlawful to “discharge ... any person because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to [ERISA]”
Section 1024 - Filing with Secretary and furnishing information to participants and certain employers
29 U.S.C. § 1024 Cited 1,327 times 8 Legal Analyses
Striking "plan description"

Morris v. Microsoft Corporation et al

54 Cited authorities

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that a denial of ERISA benefits "is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan"

Holding that states cannot create new causes of action that conflict with ERISA's " ‘interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,’ " located in § 502 of ERISA

Holding that § 1144 preempts state common law claims

Holding that civil enforcement scheme codified at § 502 is not to be supplemented by state law remedies

Holding that ERISA fiduciaries may have duties to disclose information about plan prospects that they have no duty, or even power, to change

Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner

Holding that ERISA is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans

Saving clause

Making it unlawful to “discharge ... any person because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to [ERISA]”

Striking "plan description"