Peter G. Mein v. Carus Corporation, a Corporation, M. Blouke Carus, and Carus Corporation Capital Accumulation Plan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that designation as an agent for service of process is one factor demonstrating a close connection between the employer and the plan, a situation that permits the naming of the employer as a defendant
• holding that designation as an agent for service of process is one factor demonstrating a close connection between the employer and the plan, a situation that permits the naming of the employer as a defendant
• holding that defendants beyond the plan administrator may be named
• “[I]t is silly not to name the plan as a defendant in an ERISA suit[.]”
• “[I]t is silly not to name the plan as a defendant in an ERISA suit.”
• “When the advantages of the plan are set out in the summary plan description, the pronouns we and our are used and seem clearly to refer to the company, not the plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).