YOUNG ET AL.

v.

NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Ledford v. State, 652 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
  …York City Police Dept., 999 F. 2d 699 (2d Cir.1993), and upheld as constitutional a prohibition against begging and panhandling in the New York City subway system, see Young v. New York City Transit Authority, 903 F. 2d 146 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 498 U.S. 984, 111 S.Ct. 516, 112 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990). The restrictions on speech in the subway were constitutional because they were no greater than necessary to further the government’s interest in preventing disruption and startling of passengers. Ordinances fr…
• Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1996)
  …ransactions, which may have a collateral effect on prospective, contingent employee benefits, be performed solely in the interest of plan participants.”’” Adams v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 905 F. 2d 943, 947 (CA6) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 984 (1990). Thus, ordinary business decisions, such as whether to pay a dividend or to incur debt, may be made without fear of liability for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, even though they may turn out to have negative consequences for plan parti…
• Aldridge v. Lily-Tulip, 40 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 1994)
  …nc., 4 F. 3d 291, 295 (4th Cir.1993). Section 402(b)(3) also serves the purpose of preventing unanticipated amendments from defeating employees’ expectations of benefits. Adams v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 905 F. 2d 943, 949 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 984, 111 S.Ct. 517, 112 L.Ed.2d 529 (1990). These purposes are not achieved by applying § 402 to plan terminations. The notice and procedural requirements specifically tailored for terminations under § 1341 are sufficient to keep employees apprised of…

  ← 1 / 2 →