Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 10/19/1994

Devito v. Hempstead China Shop, Inc.

Citations

  • 38 F.3d 651
  • 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29234

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that “[t]o the extent that [an] ambiguity exists, a textual analysis of the Agreement may be supplemented by an exploration of extrinsic evidence concerning the parties’ intent” (emphasis added)
  • “[Plaintiff] does not contest that the [Plan] was properly established under § 302(c)(5), but contends that it subsequently operated in a manner inconsistent with § 302(c)(5). Demisay precludes this argument.”
  • “Our research has disclosed only two defenses recognized by the courts: (1) that the pension contributions themselves are illegal, and (2) that the collective bargaining agreement is void (not merely voidable).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.