Marggraf v. Lewis

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “courts have held 18 that oral agreements or modifications cannot be used to contradict or supersede the written terms 19 of an ERISA plan.”
• stating that when the parties dispute the interpretation of an ERISA plan, “ ‘courts should first look to explicit language of the agree- ment to determine, if possible, the clear intent of the parties’ ” (quoting Armistead v. Vernitron Corp., 944 F.2d 1287, 1293
• “Each provision in an agreement should be construed consistently with the entire document such that no provision is rendered nugatory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).