concluding that remand appropriate where administrator erroneously construed plan provision, but not where no factual determinations remain to be made
Summary of this case from De Dios Cortes v. MetLife, Inc.No. 96-1105.
March 17, 1997, OCTOBER TERM, 1996.
Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 89 N. Y. 2d 31, 674 N. E. 2d 282.
concluding that remand appropriate where administrator erroneously construed plan provision, but not where no factual determinations remain to be made
Summary of this case from De Dios Cortes v. MetLife, Inc.stating that future liability of Chapter 11 debtor coal company under the Coal Act cannot be precisely stated
Summary of this case from Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc. v. HollandFull title:GUICE ET AL. v. CHARLES SCHWAB CO., INC., ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Mar 17, 1997
The High Court has " oft-repeated" that " ‘ [t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone’ " of every…
Azubuko v. Massachusetts State PoliceHe has also filed nearly twenty petitions for certiorari, extraordinary writs, or requests for rehearing with…