National Labor Relations Board v. Moltrup Steel Products Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ERISA does not require a plan administrator to interpret a plan in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 401(a)(25)
• holding that a plan conferred sufficient discretion because “the Plan Admin- istrator has the sole discretion to interpret the terms of the 5118 OPETA v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES PENSION PLAN Plan”
• stating that a plan administrator’s decision to deny benefits must be upheld if it is a reasonable interpretation of the plan’s terms and was made in good faith
• stating that a plan administrator's decision to deny benefits must be upheld if it is a reasonable interpretation of the plan's terms and was made in good faith
• observing that the phrase “based on” ordinarily refers to a “starting point” or a “foundation”
• reasoning that “based on” may be reasonably interpreted as indicating a “starting point” or “foundation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).