23 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 195,191 times   262 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the sufficiency of the allegations is a legal question so appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider it on appeal from denial of qualified immunity
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 209,562 times   342 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory allegations that the defendants acted unlawfully were insufficient to state a claim
  3. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn

    554 U.S. 105 (2008)   Cited 2,840 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this sort of "dual role" conflict did not permit "a change in the standard of review, say, from deferential to de novo review," but instead was simply to be weighed as a factor in the abuse-of-discretion analysis
  4. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

    578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 11,435 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"
  5. Mitchell v. Eastman Kodak Company

    113 F.3d 433 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 441 times
    Holding that we review the record in its entirety
  6. Daniel v. Eaton Corp.

    839 F.2d 263 (6th Cir. 1988)   Cited 419 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the proper party in an ERISA action concerning benefits is the party "shown to control administration of the plan"
  7. Harrow v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

    279 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 237 times
    Holding that exhaustion is required when the facts alleged do not present a breach of fiduciary duty claim independent of a benefits claim
  8. Graden v. Conexant

    496 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 182 times
    Holding that, under ERISA, "participant" is a "distinct term[] of art" that "refers to an employee or former employee who takes part in his employer's plan."
  9. Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

    9 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 260 times
    Holding that "[t]he beneficiary of an ERISA plan may bring a civil action against a plan administrator" to recover benefits under § 1132(B)
  10. Burstein v. Retirement Plan, Allegheny Health

    334 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003)   Cited 194 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that terms of summary plan description governed over conflicting plan language even where it provided that the plan would govern in the event of any differences between the documents
  11. Section 2560.503-1 - Claims procedure

    29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1   Cited 2,581 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1