John D. Craig v. The Pillsbury Non-Qualified Pension Plan General Mills, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that Goldstein does not call for a relaxation of the standard of review from de novo to abuse of discretion and that “de novo review does not . . . alter our analysis as much as it might appear at first blush”
• adopting a similar unilateral-contract approach, but noting that even under de novo review the court was required to \ultimately ... determine whether the Plan's decision was reasonable\
• applying the Goldstein standard and finding that the plan administrator’s interpretation was unreasonable
• “The fact that we conduct a de novo review does not ... alter our analysis as much as it might appear at first blush.”
• when the plan vests discretion in the administrator, the ultimate ■ question is whether the benefits decision is “reasonable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).