530 U.S. 211 (2000) Cited 1,355 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was "jurisdiction regardless of the correctness of the removal" because the "amended complaint alleged ERISA violations, over which the federal courts have jurisdiction"
Holding that the Scottish company's contempt did not forfeit its right to appeal based on its "good-faith challenges" to the U.S. district court's jurisdiction over it
Holding that, "once the district court correctly determined that Fallick had standing to bring suit under ERISA against Nationwide with respect to its application of reasonable and customary limitations to its determination of medical benefits - a methodology which, by Nationwide's own admission, it employs in all the benefits plans which Fallick wishes to include under the aegis of the proposed class - the court should then have analyzed whether Fallick satisfied the criteria of Rule 23 with respect to the absent class members"
Holding that prior published opinions of this Court remain binding on future panels "unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires modification of the decision or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior decision"
Holding that limitations period begins to run “when there is enough information available to the pensioner to assure that he knows or reasonably should know of the miscalculation,” and explaining its view that its standard is consistent with the Third Circuit's reasoning in Miller
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,135 times 1237 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"