Skip to main content
· 2/21/1996

Sexton v. Principal Financial Group

Citations

  • 920 F. Supp. 169
  • 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3289
  • 1996 WL 125569

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding additionally that the plaintiffs action was not an ’“action for benefits by an employee pursuant to an insurance plan” and therefore did not qualify for ERISA preemption

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Ment

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.