NOVAK v. ANDERSEN CORP.

No. 91-1957.

962 F.2d 757 (1992)

Jason W. NOVAK, Appellant, v. ANDERSEN CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; G.A. Hoel, individually, and as Trustee, Plan Administrator and Committee Member of the Andersen Corporation Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; John Victor Jensen, individually, and as Trustee, Plan Administrator and Committee Member of the Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; M.O. Johnson, individually, and as Trustee, Plan Administrator and Committee Member of the Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; L.W. Kedrowski, individually, and as Trustee, Plan Administrator and Committee Member of the Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; H.C. Meissner, individually, and as Trustee, Plan Administrator and Committee Member of the Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; G. Schneider, individually, and as Trustee, Plan Administrator and Committee Member of the Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; W.A. Wellman, individually, and as Trustee, Plan Administrator and Committee Member of the Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust; John Doe; Richard Roe; Other Trustees; Plan Administrators and the Committee Members of the Andersen Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, whose identities are unknown, Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Decided April 9, 1992.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing Denied May 29, 1992.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Matthew B. Newman, Minneapolis, Minn., argued (David D. Himlie, Edina, Minn., on brief), for appellant.

Edward M. Laine, St. Paul, Minn., argued (Paul W. Iversen, on brief), for appellees.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and STUART, Senior District Judge.


Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied May 29, 1992.

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

This is a case brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., by the beneficiary of a qualified ERISA plan to recover damages for his former employer's alleged breach of its fiduciary duty under that plan. The District Court1 granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases