Law v. Railway Express Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing this obligation extends to the government acting “in the beneficiaries’ stead”
• rejecting argument that the fiduciary exception applies \whenever otherwise privileged legal advice 'relates to' fiduciary matters\
• rejecting argument that pension funds not willfully misused when utilized for good of company so that employees may keep their jobs
• protecting documents from disclosure which “were plainly ‘defensive on the trustees’ part’ and aimed at advising the trustees ‘how far they were in peril.’”
• describing law firm as “w[earing] many hats, serving at various times as counsel to [trustees] personally and in their capacities as ERISA plan trustees”
• applying fiduciary exception and its rationale to trustee of a pension benefit plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).