Word v. Commerce Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Congress' legislative history for ERISA does not afford federal courts the power to create additional remedies under ERISA
• holding that ERISA “cannot be read as providing for an equitable remedy of contribution in favor of a breaching fiduciary”
• affirming dismissal of third party complaint under Rule 14 where “ERISA, the 11 governing substantive law, does not recognize a right of contribution”
• finding participation by 2 more than one attorney a “reasonable necessity, given the complexity of legal issues and the 3 breadth of factual evidence involved”
• finding the defendant’s “third-party 25 claim [for contribution or indemnity] necessarily fails since [the Employee Retirement 26 Income Security Act], the governing substantive law, does not recognize a right of 27 contribution”
• stating 24 that “while Rule 14 provides the procedural mechanism for the assertion of a claim for 25 26 Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 686–87 (9th Cir. 2007) (breach of contract claim is a question of state law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).