Maurer v. Joy Technologies, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that general durational clauses for the entire agreement are not clearly intended to cover retiree benefits
• explaining that \general durational provisions . . . are not clearly meant to include retiree benefits\
• finding that a CBA termination clause was not a specific durational clause because it did not specifically reference retiree benefits
• finding that a CBA termination clause was not a specific durational clause because it did not specifically reference retiree benefits
• explaining that, “[b]ecause the CBAs permit retirement at age 55 and promise insurance at age 65, the promise is meaningless if it could be terminated in three years”
• explaining that “general durational provisions ... are not clearly meant to include retiree benefits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).