Skip to main content

America West Holdings Corp. v. Employer-Teamsters Joint Council No. 84 Pension Trust Fund

U.S. Supreme CourtOctober 20, 2003No. No. 03-250

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court review
Circuit
Federal Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Supreme Court case involving America West Holdings Corp. and Employer-Teamsters Joint Council No. 84 Pension Trust Fund regarding pension plan obligations and fiduciary responsibilities.

Similar Rulings

America West Holdings Corp. v. Employer-Teamsters Joint Council No. 84 Pension Trust Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated
U.S. Supreme CourtOct 2003
Unresolvable
America West Holdings Corp. v. Employer-Teamsters Joint Council No. 84 Pension Trust Fund
U.S. Supreme CourtOct 2003
Unresolvable
Bonneau
1st CircuitNov 2013
Remanded
International Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania & Delaware Benefit Pension Fund v. N. Abbonizio Contractors
E.D. Pa.Nov 2015
Mixed Result
Briant
Unknown CourtOct 1889

<p>Error to Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Jas. B. Gantt, Judge.</p> <p>(I) Wken the defendant Jackson became the administrator of the estate of Jacob Fudge, deceased, the debt of Erwin, on which the judgment was rendered in his favor, under which the lands sought to be affected by this proceeding were sold, vested in him, in trust, for the use and benefit of those entitled thereto, under the laws of this state: First, the creditors; second, the-heirs-at-law. It was his duty to pi’eserve the trust fund for those so entitled, as aforesaid. Had he bought in said land at the execution sale, as he might have done, with said trust funds, and taken title to himself, he would have taken and held the land on and subject to the same trusts as aforesaid. When he caused said real estate to be sold and bought 'in, in the names of his wife and her brothers and sisters, the heirs-at-law of said Fudge, paid therefor out of and with said trust, funds, and caused title to same to be conveyed to them, they took and held said land upon and subject to the-same trusts as the said Jackson held said funds — in trust for the use and benefit of 'those entitled thereto under the laws of this state: First, for the creditors; and, second, for the heirs-at-law. 1 Pom. Eq., secs. 422-473; 2 Pom. Eq., secs. 587, 1049, 1077, 1080; 1 Perry-on Trusts [3 Ed.] secs. 127-225; 1 Story’s Eq. [12 Ed.] sec. 322, and note; Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 251; Allen v. Gillett, 21 Fed. Rep. 273; Michoud v.. Girod, 4 How. 503; Wolf v. Robinson, 20 Mo. 460; . Smith v. Isaac, 12 Mo. 106; Thornton v. Irwin, 43 Mo. 153; Grumly v. Webb, 44 Mo. 451; Ray v. Qopelin, 47' Mo. 83; Lass v. Sternberg, 50 Mo. 126; Gaines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 545; Kitchen v. Railroad, 69 Mo. 260; Hull v. Yorhis, 45 Mo. 555; Durfee v. Moran, 57 Mo. 374; Roberts v. Mosely, 64 Mo. 507; Baker v. Railroad, 86-Mo. 75; Edwards ?>. Gotschalk,, 25 Mo. App. 549; Harper v. Mansfield, 58 Mo. 17;° Clark v. Drake,. 63-Mo. 354; Meyer v. Jefferson, 5 Mo. App. 250

Remanded

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.