Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Debickero

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding ERISA did not apply to situation with “no employer 19 oversight, no ongoing employer commitment, nor any potential for employer abuse”
• declining to expand enumerated exclusions that “cannot be squared with the plain language and 3 purpose of the regulation, or with the statutory scheme to which it relates”
• “IRAs are specifically excluded from ERISA’s coverage” because IRAs involved “no employer oversight, no ongoing employer commitment, nor any potential for employer abuse”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).