descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Carl Colteryahn Dairy, Inc. v. Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund, American Benefit Corporation, Brooks (Melvin M., Cpa), Stokes (Frank), Agent of American Benefit Corporation, Wilneff (Leon B.), Agent of American Benefit Corporation, Fagan (Thomas L.), Hardy (w.f.), Hutchinson (James H., Jr.), Montani (Samuel A.), Salvatora (Charles E.), Zachua (Joseph E.), Peluso (Richard R.), Baker (Raymond H.), Trustees

Citation: 37 F.3d 1485Docket: 93-3607

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; August 8, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case of Carl Colteryahn Dairy, Inc. v. Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed an appeal concerning pension fund disputes. The court affirmed the decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania, which involved multiple defendants including trustees and agents of the pension fund and benefit corporation. The ruling confirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the legal standing and decisions regarding the pension fund's administration and the associated fiduciary responsibilities. The case, cited as 37 F.3d 1485, was decided on August 8, 1994, under appeal numbers 93-3607 and 93-3608.

Legal Issues Addressed

Fiduciary Responsibilities of Pension Fund Trustees

Application: The decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania, which was upheld, involved the fiduciary responsibilities of trustees and agents of the pension fund.

Reasoning: The ruling confirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the legal standing and decisions regarding the pension fund's administration and the associated fiduciary responsibilities.

Legal Standing in Pension Fund Disputes

Application: The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, recognizing the legal standing of the involved parties regarding the pension fund's administration.

Reasoning: The ruling confirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the legal standing and decisions regarding the pension fund's administration and the associated fiduciary responsibilities.