Llabres v. Bowie

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring that, for declaratory judgment purposes, the controversy be “of sufficient immediacy”
• endorsing “without reservation the interpretation of the Secretary” that “[w]hen identical trustees of two employee benefit plans whose participants and beneficiaries are not identical effect a loan between the plans . . . a per se violation of [Section 1106(b)(2)] exists”
• “When identical trustees of two employee benefit plans whose participants and beneficiaries are not identical effect a loan between the plans without a § 408 exemption, a per se violation of ERISA exists,”
• “Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 allows a federal court to grant a declaratory judgment in ’a case of actual controversy.’ The statute creates a remedy only; it does not create a basis of jurisdiction, and does not authorize the rendering of advisory opinions.“
• “Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 allows a federal court to grant a declaratory judgment in ’a case of actual controversy.’ The statute creates a remedy only; it does not create a basis of jurisdiction, and does not authorize the rendering of advisory opinions.“

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).