Skip to main content
· 8/29/2001

Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Compagnoni

Citations

  • 162 F. Supp. 2d 702
  • 26 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2575
  • 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5840
  • 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15192

How courts have described this case

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

  • imposing state law perfection requirements would create choice-of- law difficulties, frustrating objective of ensuring uniformity of ERISA administration
  • wife had possessory interest in benefits once first DRO had been entered although interest was unenforceable until QDRO was obtained

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gilmore

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.