Golden Gate Restaurant v. City and County of San Francisco

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a San Francisco ordinance requiring business to make certain minimum health care expenditures on behalf of covered employees was not preempted by ERISA
• employing a “ ‘holistic analysis guided by congressional intent’ ” (citation omitted)
• noting ERISA intended to protect “employees against the abuse and 4 mismanagement of funds”
• employing a “ ‘holistic analysis guided by congressional intent’ ” (citation omitted)
• “All of the cases applying the Donovan criteria address the question whether an informal, or de facto, ERISA plan has been established, and all involve some type of unwritten or informal promise made by an employer to its employees.”
• relying on Travelers, 514 U.S. at 661

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).