United McGill Corporation v. Sharon Stinnett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that application of federal common law would override the plan’s reimbursement provision in contravention of ERISA’s purposes
• stating that \the plain language of an ERISA plan must be enforced in accordance with its literal and natural meaning.\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that a primary purpose of ERISA is to “ensure the integrity of written, bargained-for benefit plans”
• stating that a primary purpose of ERISA is to “ensure the integrity of written, bargained-for benefit plans”
• explaining that “the plain language of an ERISA plan must be enforced” and that “one of the primary functions of ERISA is to ensure the integrity of written, bargained-for benefit plans”
• “[T]he plain language of an ERISA plan must be enforced in accordance with ‘its literal and natural meaning.’” (quoting Health Cost Controls v. Isbell, 139 F.3d 1070, 1072 (6th Cir. 1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).