Mellon v. United States ex rel. Clayton

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that rule of contra proferentem applies only 8 No. 08-2451 when courts undertake de novo review of an administra- tor’s interpretation of an ERISA plan
• “A decision constitutes an abuse of discretion when it is not just clearly incorrect but downright unreasonable.”
• \The federal common law of ERISA . . . provide[s] that ambiguous terms in benefit plans should be construed in favor of beneficiaries\ where there is \an absence of conclusive evidence about intent.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).