Mary ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD PENSION PLAN, Long Island Railroad Pension Plan's Board of Managers, Long Island Railroad Pension Plan's Joint Board on Pension Applications, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York as Trustee of the Plan, T.P. Moore and John Doe, as members of the Plan Board of Managers, T.M. Taranto, J.B. Huff and H.J. Libert, as members of the Plan Board of Managers and the Joint Board on Pension Applications, E. Yule, W. Styziak and J. Bove, as members of the Joint Board on Pension Applications, and the Long Island Railroad, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued March 30, 1987.
Decided September 3, 1987.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Edgar Pauk, Legal Services for the Elderly, New York City (David S. Preminger, Rosen, Szegda, Gersowitz, Preminger & Bloom, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Eugene P. Souther, New York City (Seward & Kissel, Bruce D. Senzel, Mark J. Hyland and Dan J. Schulman, the Long Island R. Co., Thomas M. Taranto and Roger J. Schiera, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Roger M. Olsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C. (Michael L. Paup, David English Carmack and B. Paul Klein, Attorneys, Dept. of Justice, William F. Nelson, Chief Counsel, I.R.S., George S. Salem, Solicitor of Labor, Dept. of Labor, Gary M. Ford, Gen. Counsel, Peter H. Gould, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, Kenton Hambrick, Attorney, Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.), for the U.S. as amicus curiae.
Judith A. Gordon, New York City, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y. (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y.), for the State of N.Y. as amicus curiae.
Before MESKILL, PIERCE and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge:
This case brings before us, for the second time, the question of whether the Long Island Railroad's ("LIRR") pension plan is a "governmental plan" within the meaning of section 3(32) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32), and is therefore exempt from compliance with Title I of that statute. See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(1). The issue arises in the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
