Holland v. Double G Coal Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• the 1992 Plan was intended as a “backup” to the Combined Fund and IEPs
• “[W]e must assume that if Congress had intended to exempt companies no longer in business from all of the provisions of the Coal Act, it would have so indicated.”
• \[T]he principal problem with prior plans that the Coal Act was designed to remedy had been caused by coal operators ceasing business and 'dumping' those employees for whom they were obligated to provide benefits.\
• “[T]he principal problem with prior plans that the Coal Act was designed to remedy had been caused by coal operators ceasing business and ‘dumping’ those employees for whom they were obligated to provide benefits.”
• the Coal Act’s three-vehicle structure “points to the conclusion that the 1992 Benefit Plan is designed to ‘backstop’ the first two vehicles of health coverage and provide coverage for those who do not receive benefits under the Combined Fund or individual employer plans”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).