§Why CasetextPricing

Fernandez et al v. K-M Industries Holding Co, Inc et al

Reply to Opposition North Star Trust Company's Separate Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment re Statute of Limitations Pursuant to this Court's July 2, 2008 Order

10 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Lanier

    520 U.S. 259 (1997)   Cited 2,399 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague

  2. Reves v. Ernst Young

    507 U.S. 170 (1993)   Cited 1,412 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant "participates" if he "directs" the pattern of racketeering activity

  3. Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.

    447 U.S. 102 (1980)   Cited 1,834 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that information obtained in response to a FOIA request was a "public disclosure" for purposes of the Consumer Product Safety Act

  4. Landwehr v. DuPree

    72 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 104 times
    Holding in ERISA context that the statute of limitations begins to run when the individual plaintiff learns of the alleged violations

  5. Silverman v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co.

    138 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 75 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a plaintiff “must show some causal link between the alleged breach of [the fiduciary's] duty and the loss plaintiff seeks to recover”

  6. Stephens v. US Airways Group

    555 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 9 times

    Civil Action No. 07-1264 (RMC). May 20, 2008. Roger Eric Zuckerman, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Washington, DC, Jacks C. Nickens, Jessica L. Wilson, Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell Flack LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. Karen M. Wahle, Tom A. Jerman, O'Melveny Myers, LLP, Washington, DC, for U.S. Airways Group and Retirement Income Plan for Pilots of US Air Inc. Israel Goldowitz, Charles L. Finke, Stephanie Thomas, Jean Marie Breen, Mark R. Snyder, Office of Chief Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

  7. Steinman v. Hicks

    252 F. Supp. 2d 746 (C.D. Ill. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that an ERISA plan was "entitled to summary judgment because it cannot be named as a defendant in a suit in which it must be considered the plaintiff"

  8. Brugos v. Nannenga

    Cause No. 2:03-CV-547 RM (N.D. Ind. Jun. 24, 2005)   Cited 1 times
    In Brugos, the underlying action was for breach of fiduciary duty. Before the underlying case was decided, cross-claims for indemnification were filed. The cross-defendants filed a motion to dismiss the cross-claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  9. Section 1109 - Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

    29 U.S.C. § 1109   Cited 2,489 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Breaching fiduciary "shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate"

  10. Section 1105 - Liability for breach of co-fiduciary

    29 U.S.C. § 1105   Cited 929 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a plan administrator may delegate fiduciary responsibilities if permitted by the ERISA plan