Carl W. Mullis Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Nicholson

How courts have described this case

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

• “disagree[ing] with Yard-Man to the extent that it recognizes an inference of an intent to vest” and suggesting that “there must be a specific, if not written, expression of the employer’s intent to be bound”
• plan provision that retirement health benefits “may now or hereinafter be amended, modified or supplemented in collective bargaining” inconsistent with vesting
• “We disagree with Yardr-Man ... [and] believe that it is not at all inconsistent with labor policy to require plaintiffs to prove their case without the aid of gratuitous inferences”
• rejecting any general inference of intent to vest retirees' benefits
• rejecting any general inference of intent to vest retirees’ benefits
• rejecting any general inference of intent to vest retirees’ benefits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).