CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP.

v.

SCHOONEJONGEN ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1995)
  …16 F. 3d, at 1544. Applying that “lenient standard,” as further developed in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U. S. 647 (1990), the Court of Appeals upheld the use of subcontractor compensation clauses. 16 F. 3d, at 1547. We granted certiorari. 512 U. S. 1288 (1994). II Adarand, in addition to its general prayer for “such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and equitable,” specifically seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against any future use of subcontractor compensation clauses.…
• Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73 (U.S. 1995)
  …on stating that “[t]he Company” reserves the right to amend the plan states a valid amendment procedure under § 402(b)(3) and, if not, whether the proper remedy is to declare this or any other amendment void ab initio. We granted certiorari on both. 512 U. S. 1288 (1994). II In interpreting § 402(b)(3), we are mindful that ERISA does not create any substantive entitlement to employer-provided health benefits or any other kind of welfare benefits. Employers or other plan sponsors are generally free under ERI…
• Anderson v. Edwards ad litem for Edwards, 514 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1995)
  …ACF-AT-94-6 (Mar. 16, 1994), App. to Pet. for Cert. 37. Moreover, a number of Federal Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort have recently issued rulings at odds with the decision below.3 We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 512 U. S. 1288 (1994), and we now reverse. II In Beaton, the Ninth Circuit ruled that grouping into the same AU all needy children (both siblings and non-siblings alike) who live in the same household is inconsistent with three different federal AFDC regulations…