Reported Cases:

• Boggs v. Boggs,

  No. 94-30178, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, 89 F. 3d 1169; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17829; 20 E.B.C. 1793, July 16, 1996, FILED, As Amended.

  Core Terms: spouse, preemption, non participant, community property, heirs, surviving spouse, anti-alienation, community property law, spendthrift, preempted ...

  ... LIVAUDAIS, Mandeville, La. James F Willeford, NOLA. (AMICUS-DEPT. OF ...

• SANDRA JEAN DALE BOGGS, PETITIONER v. THOMAS F. BOGGS, HARRY M. BOGGS AND DAVID B. BOGGS

  520 U.S. 833, *; 117 S. Ct. 1754, **; 138 L. Ed. 2d 45, ***; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 3396

  No. 96-79, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 520 U.S. 833; 117 S. Ct. 1754; 138 L. Ed. 2d 45; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 3396; 65 U.S.L.W. 4418; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4103; 97 Daily Journal DAR 6882; 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 511; 21 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1047

  January 15, 1997, Argued
  June 2, 1997, Decided

  PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

  Overview: The court reversed a judgment that granted respondents summary judgment, in petitioner's action seeking a determination of rights to decedent's retirement benefits because the testamentary instrument made by the decedent's non-participant spouse to respondents pursuant to state law and conveying a portion of decedent's undistributed retirement benefits, was pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

• Dibidale of Louisiana, Inc. v. American Bank & Trust Co.,

Nos. 89-3601, 90-3400, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, 916 F. 2d 300; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19437; 1990-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P69, 235; 17 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1253, November 6, 1990, As Corrected. Second Correction. Amended and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 26, 1991, Reported at 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 19775.

Overview: Demonstration of the tying bank's market power or the anti-competitive effect of the alleged arrangement was not required to recover under Bank Holding Company Act for claim of unlawful tie-in.

Core Terms: tying, customer, anti-tying, tied, summary judgment, tying arrangement, antitrust, coercion, negotiation, deposition testimony ...

... John H. Ryan, James F Willeford, Gordon P. Serou, ...

• Rushing v. Winn Dixie Stores,

  CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2088 SECTION "C" (2), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4458, March 21, 2003, Decided, March 21, 2003, Filed, Entered

  Overview: Because the evidence relied on by the ERISA plan administrator in denying the employee's claim was scant, contradictory, speculative, and conditional, the administrator abused its discretion when it denied the employee long term disability benefits.

  Core Terms: administrator, disability benefits, summary judgment, totally disabled, administrative record, long term, occupation, total disability, contradictory, performing ...

  ... James Frederick Willeford, James F Willeford, Attorney at Law, New ...

• In re Rebar Steel Antitrust Investigation,

  No. 58,883, Supreme Court of Louisiana, 343 So. 2d 1377; 1977 La. LEXIS 6220; 1977, Rehearing Denied April 7, 1997.

  Overview: State district court did not have authority to issue grants of immunity for the purpose of requiring individuals to give depositions to the district attorney for use in a federal district court civil action for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

• Klein v. Am. Life & Cas. Co.,

  No. 2001 CA 2336, COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT, 2001 2336 (La. App. 1 Cir, 06/27/03);, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 1909, June 27, 2003, Judgment Rendered, THIS DECISION IS NOT FINAL UNTIL EXPIRATION OF THE FOURTEEN DAY REHEARING PERIOD., Later proceeding at Klein v. Am. Life & Cas. Co., 2003 La. App. LEXIS 1921 (La. App. 1 Cir., June 27, 2003)

  Overview: Where heirs sued insurance agents and estate planning corporation for breach of fiduciary duties, it was error not to have allowed them to amend petition to allege fraud where "bait and switch" allegations raised the possibility claims not preempted.

Back to the Top