Carter v. Amax Coal Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state law claims were preempted by ERISA even though plaintiff did not name plan administrator as defendant
• employer’s alleged promises related to its benefit plan “to the extent that the plan was the vehicle for such promises to be fulfilled”
• “the preemption issue cannot be resolved simply by determining whether or not plaintiff has named an ERISA plan administrator as one of the defendants”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).