J. P. Murphy v. Inexco Oil Company, J. P. Murphy v. Inexco Oil Company

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 words ‘provides retirement income’ patently refer only to plans designed for the purpose of paying retirement income”
• concluding that the exercise of “jurisdiction does not depend on the contention having ultimate merit” and thus courts are to exercise jurisdiction over a claim properly asserting federal question jurisdiction so long as the claim is not frivolous
• holding an employer’s payment of royalty payments to be current income and not systematically deferred income
• finding no systematic deferral where the plan rewarded employees with royalty interests in a business prospect and paid the royalties annually
• holding the same, with respect to a bonus plan
• “primary purpose” of oil production royalty program “was to reward employees for their service with present benefits”; agreement was not a welfare benefit plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).