holding that state common law claims for breach of contract and implied contract, promissory estoppel, estoppel by conduct, and fraud and deceit are preempted under ERISA
Summary of this case from Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc.No. 84-2009.
October 7, 1985.
C.A. 9th Cir. Motion of Organization Resources Counselors, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 F. 2d 1348.
holding that state common law claims for breach of contract and implied contract, promissory estoppel, estoppel by conduct, and fraud and deceit are preempted under ERISA
Summary of this case from Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc.holding that a police officer's statement to a defendant that if he did not give a statement, the officer would make sure that he received the death penalty was not an affirmative promise
Summary of this case from Perales v. Stateholding that the trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony
Summary of this case from Releford v. Stateholding that Alabama's system for compensating appointed attorneys does not violate principles of due process or equal protection or a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel
Summary of this case from Woods v. Stateholding that Alabama's system for compensating appointed attorneys does not violate principles of due process or equal protection or a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel
Summary of this case from Ingram v. Stateholding that the fact that defendant did not want police detectives to tape or write down his confession did not establish that his will was overborne or that his confession was not voluntary
Summary of this case from McNeil v. Commonwealthfinding plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously by attempting to impose additional conditions of eligibility above and beyond those required by the terms of the plan
Summary of this case from Norris v. Ford Motor Co.finding plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously by attempting to impose additional conditions of eligibility above and beyond those required by the terms of the plan
Summary of this case from Norris v. Ford Motor Companydismissing an ineffective assistance of counsel theory as "clearly a product of hindsight" that did not establish unreasonable strategy on the part of trial counsel
Summary of this case from Sterling v. United Statesexamining jury's role in evaluating witness' credibility
Summary of this case from Delacruz v. StateFull title:DEL MONTE CORP. ET AL. v. BLAU ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 7, 1985
Ex parte Fowler, 574 So.2d 745, 747 (Ala. 1990). " `The defendant has failed to satisfy the test set out in…
Bunker v. U.S.In making this determination, there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct was within the wide range…