The Sommers Drug Stores Company Employee Profit Sharing Trust, Cross-Appellee v. Walter N. Corrigan and Corrigan Enterprises, Inc., Cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that although “benefits” and “damages” are mutually exclusive for purposes of determining whether a former employee is a participant in an ERISA plan, the terms have overlapping meaning
• noting that although “benefits” and “damages” are mutually exclusive for purposes of determining whether a former employee is a participant in an ERISA plan, the terms have overlapping meaning
• finding the plaintiffs’ claims were for vested benefits because they were “quite close to a simple claim that benefits were miscalculated”
• “standing is essential to the exercise of jurisdiction, and ... lack of standing can be raised at any time by a party or by the court.”
• observing \Texas has adopted the 'most significant relationship' test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6 (1971) for resolving choice of law issues\
• “Standing, since it goes to the very power of the court to act, must exist at all stages of the proceeding”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).