Jones, C. v. McNaughton Homes

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that in the absence of federal law governing prejudgment interest rates, courts look to state law
• stating that we “will not consider” an attempt to “reframe [an] argument ... for the first time in a reply brief’
• reasoning that the proper focus of relief for a violation of fiduciary duties under § 1109(a
• rejecting offset to account for unpaid or forgiven ESOP debt and noting that \[e]very court to consider this question\ agreed
• using concurrent judgment to dispose of consolidated cases “[t]o alleviate any misconception and avert double recovery”
• turning to state law for guidance because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act does not set prejudgment interest rates

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).