Ida K. Daniels v. Thomas & Betts Corporation

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]he law has traditionally accepted” attorneys’ statements of authority to represent a client “in the absence of reason to question them”
• “If the statement creates a substantial risk of misleading a reasonable employee, it is foreseeable that an employee will be misled to his detriment. That foreseeability and reasonable reliance by a beneficiary are all that is required.”
• “[I]n order to make out a breach of fiduciary duty claim of the kind here asserted, a plaintiff must establish each of the following elements: (1) the defendant's status as an ERISA fiduciary acting as a fiduciary; (2) a misrepresentation on the part of the defendant; (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).