HOLLIDAY

v.

XEROX CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• Associated GAS Distribs. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 824 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
  …e preference[s]” and “undue discrimination” in violation of §§ 4 and 5 of the NGA. But “the mere fact of a rate disparity” is not enough to constitute unlawful discrimination. Cities of Bethany v. FERC, 727 F. 2d 1131, 1139 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917, 105 S.Ct. 293, 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984). The reporting system will enable the Commission to monitor behavior and to act promptly when it or another party detects behavior arguably falling under the bans of §§ 4 and 5. This provision for flexibility co…
• Gerritsen v. Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …level, the discretionary function exemption provides no protection from liability even though such decisions or acts may involve elements of discretion. Olsen v. Government of Mexico, 729 F. 2d 641, 647 (9th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917, 105 S.Ct. 295, 83 L.Ed.2d 230 (1984). Many of the acts alleged in the complaint to have been committed on behalf of the Mexican Consulate, including assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping, are not decisions to “establish governmental policy,”…
• Hlinka v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. & Gen. Pension Bd. of the Bethlehem Steel Corp. & Subsidiary Cos., 863 F.2d 279 (3d Cir. 1988)
  …onable expenses of administering the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(1) (1982). The broad grant of discretion provided by paragraph 2.6(d) of BSC’s plan is not prohibited by ERISA.5 In Holliday v. Xerox Corp., 732 F. 2d 548 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 917, 105 S.Ct. 294, 83 L.Ed.2d 229 (1985), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that ERISA precludes all pension activity which inures to an employer’s benefit. The court posited that ERISA was not intended to preclude employers from…