Skip to main content
· 1/27/1969

Smith v. Maresca

Citations

  • 393 U.S. 1071
  • 89 S. Ct. 731
  • 21 L. Ed. 2d 715
  • 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2773

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding the de novo standard of review applies because the plan administrator did not have the discretion to interpret ambiguous policy language that was at issue
  • applying Firestone to dispute over interpretation of sub-rogation clause in ERISA plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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.