SOTO

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Citator

Cited By

• Frederic J. Raymond v. Mobil OIL Corp., 983 F.2d 1528 (10th Cir. 1993)
  …of the alleged ERISA violation. Cf. Teagardener v. Republic-Franklin Inc. Pension Plan, 909 F. 2d 947, 951 n. 2 (6th Cir.1990) (“The Plan provides benefits for a ‘Former Participant/ a term that is not defined or mentioned in ERISA.”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1027, 111 S.Ct. 678, 112 L.Ed.2d 670 (1991). Rather, it is written in the present tense, indicating that current participant status is the relevant test. See Winchester v. Pension Comm. of Michael Reese Health Plan, Inc., 942 F. 2d 1190, 1194 (7th Cir.19…
• In re Pearson, 990 F.2d 653 (1st Cir. 1993)
  …the authority to docket the letter as a pro se complaint. We agree. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); Soto v. United States Postal Serv., 905 F. 2d 537, 539 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1027, 111 S.Ct. 679, 112 L.Ed.2d 671 (1991); McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 111 F. 2d 1178, 1190 (7th Cir.1985); Gale v. United States Dep't of Justice, 628 F. 2d 224, 226-27 (D.C.Cir.1980). . In its present posture, this case does not require that we decide wh…