Carlstrand v. Kerwin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts cannot “rely[ ] on the participants’ ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent deci- sions by [plan fiduciaries]”
• concluding that “a categorical rule is inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires”
• holding that Divane’s “categorical rule is inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires”
• explaining that “the circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate difficult tradeoffs, and courts must give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise”
• noting “[a]t times, the circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate difficult tradeoffs,” so courts must “give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise”
• rejecting this court’s reliance on plan participant control over funds selection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).