Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Third Circuit· 7/31/2007

Graden v. Conexant Systems Inc.

Citations

  • 496 F.3d 291
  • 41 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1330
  • 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18179
  • 2007 WL 2177170

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that, under ERISA, “participant” is a “distinct term[] of art” that “refers to an employee or former employee who takes part in his employer's plan.”
  • recognizing that a plan and a plan administrator may be sued under § 1132(a)(1)(B)
  • concluding that even when plaintiffs “could demand a full benefit payment from the plan itself under § 1132(a)(1)(B) . . . , for most plaintiffs the sensible route is to use § 1132(a)(2
  • explaining that any recovery under ERISA goes solely to the participants who invested in the imprudent fund
  • stating that even when plaintiffs “could demand a full benefit payment from the plan itself under § 1132(a)(1)(B) . . . . for most plaintiffs the sensible route is to use § 1132(a)(2
  • describing the distinction between constitutional, prudential, and statutory standing, and characterizing a similar ERISA claim as raising no constitutional standing issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McKee, Ambro, Michel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

98 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Graden v. Conexant Systems Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.