Skip to main content
· 4/19/1995

Federal Case

Citations

  • 54 F.3d 1488

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that the exclusive benefit rule did not require the return of plan assets where Plaintiffs did not allege any “reversion, diversion, or any other sort of payment of surplus assets to [the plan administrators] ’'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.