Kenneth E. Wildbur, Sr. v. Arco Chemical Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an interpretation in direct conflict with the explicit language of the Plan indicates that the interpretation is arbitrary and capricious
• stating that an interpretation in direct conflict with the explicit language of the Plan indicates that the interpretation is arbitrary and capricious
• holding that discretionary authority must be expressly granted in plan’s text
• noting that there is “only a semantic, and not a substantive, difference” between “abuse of discretion” and “arbitrary and capricious” standards
• stating that a finding of discretionary authority did not hinge on the use of words such as “‘discretion’ or any other ‘magic word’”
• stating that a district court must \explain its reasons for granting a motion for summary judgment in sufficient detail for us to determine whether the court correctly applied the appropriate legal test\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).