David A. Morlan v. Universal Guaranty Life Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because the plaintiff “did not list his … claim on the schedule, … abandonment was not authorized by [11 U.S.C. §] 554(c),” and that “[p]roperty not abandoned under [§ 554] remains property of the debtor’s estate”
• “[U]ntil certification there is no class action but merely the prospect of one; the only action is the suit by the named plaintiffs.”
• “[A] properly assigned ERISA claim makes the assignee a participant or beneficiary within the meaning of the Act.”
• “[A] properly assigned ERISA claim makes the assignee a participant or beneficiary within the meaning of the Act.”
• “[A] properly assigned ERISA claim makes the assignee a participant or beneficiary within the meaning of the Act.”
• “[U]ntil certification there is no class action but merely the prospect of one; the only action is the suit by the named plaintiff[].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).