§1002 — Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(b)(28)(B)(i), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799]

218 citing cases

Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §1002

[§ 1002. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(b)(28)(B)(i), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799] Section, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 295, related to the recognition of the entire amount of gain or loss determined under section 1001 on the sale or exchange of property. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Effective Date of RepealRepeal effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976, see section 1901(d) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date of 1976 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.

Treasury Regulations

Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1Sales or exchanges Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

(a) General rule. The general rule with respect to gain or loss realized upon the sale or exchange of property as determined under section 1001 is that the entire amount of such gain or loss is recognized except in cases where specific provisions of subtitle A of the code provide otherwise.

(b) Strict construction of exceptions from general rule. The exceptions from the general rule requiring the recognition of all gains and losses, like other exceptions from a rule of taxation of general and uniform application, are strictly construed and do not extend either beyond the words or the underlying assumptions and purposes of the exception. Nonrecognition is accorded by the Code only if the exchange is one which satisfies both (1) the specific description in the Code of an excepted exchange, and (2) the underlying purpose for which such exchange is excepted from the general rule. The exchange must be germane to, and a necessary incident of, the investment or enterprise in hand. The relationship of the exchange to the venture or enterprise is always material, and the surrounding facts and circumstances must be shown. As elsewhere, the taxpayer claiming the benefit of the exception must show himself within the exception.

(c) Certain exceptions to general rule. Exceptions to the general rule are made, for example, by sections 351(a), 354, 361(a), 371(a)(1), 371(b)(1), 721, 1031, 1035 and 1036. These sections describe certain specific exchanges of property in which at the time of the exchange particular differences exist between the property parted with and the property acquired, but such differences are more formal than substantial. As to these, the Code provides that such differences shall not be deemed controlling, and that gain or loss shall not be recognized at the time of the exchange. The underlying assumption of these exceptions is that the new property is substantially a continuation of the old investment still unliquidated; and, in the case of reorganizations, that the new enterprise, the new corporate structure, and the new property are substantially continuations of the old still unliquidated.

(d) Exchange. Ordinarily, to constitute an exchange, the transaction must be a reciprocal transfer of property, as distinguished from a transfer of property for a money consideration only.
Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(a)General rule. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

General rule. The general rule with respect to gain or loss realized upon the sale or exchange of property as determined under section 1001 is that the entire amount of such gain or loss is recognized except in cases where specific provisions of subtitle A of the code provide otherwise.
Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(b)Strict construction of exceptions from general rule. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

Strict construction of exceptions from general rule. The exceptions from the general rule requiring the recognition of all gains and losses, like other exceptions from a rule of taxation of general and uniform application, are strictly construed and do not extend either beyond the words or the underlying assumptions and purposes of the exception. Nonrecognition is accorded by the Code only if the exchange is one which satisfies both (1) the specific description in the Code of an excepted exchange, and (2) the underlying purpose for which such exchange is excepted from the general rule. The exchange must be germane to, and a necessary incident of, the investment or enterprise in hand. The relationship of the exchange to the venture or enterprise is always material, and the surrounding facts and circumstances must be shown. As elsewhere, the taxpayer claiming the benefit of the exception must show himself within the exception.
Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(c)Certain exceptions to general rule. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

Certain exceptions to general rule. Exceptions to the general rule are made, for example, by sections 351(a), 354, 361(a), 371(a)(1), 371(b)(1), 721, 1031, 1035 and 1036. These sections describe certain specific exchanges of property in which at the time of the exchange particular differences exist between the property parted with and the property acquired, but such differences are more formal than substantial. As to these, the Code provides that such differences shall not be deemed controlling, and that gain or loss shall not be recognized at the time of the exchange. The underlying assumption of these exceptions is that the new property is substantially a continuation of the old investment still unliquidated; and, in the case of reorganizations, that the new enterprise, the new corporate structure, and the new property are substantially continuations of the old still unliquidated.
Treas. Reg. §1.1002-1(d)Exchange. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

Exchange. Ordinarily, to constitute an exchange, the transaction must be a reciprocal transfer of property, as distinguished from a transfer of property for a money consideration only.

218 Citing Cases

David H. Barber & Jean B. Barber, Petitioners · 2016

Commissioner, 317 F.2d at 795: [O]ne need not assume the benefits and burdens ofownership in propertybefore exchanging it but may properly acquire title solely for the purpose ofexchange and accept title and transfer it in exchange for other like property, all as a part ofthe same transaction with no resulting gain which is recognizable under Section 1002 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

Estate of George H. Bartell, Jr., Deceased; George David Bartell & Jean Louise Bartell Barber, Co-Personal Representatives & Estate of Elizabeth Bartell, Deceased, George David Bartell & Jean Louise Barber Bartell Barber, Co-Personal Representatives, Petitioners · 2016

George D. Bartell & June M. Bartell, Petitioners · 2016

Alan R. & Toni A. Pinn, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2013-45 · 2013

1002 (2006)), generally applies to VEBAs. -8- [*8] PBCjoined the American Workers Group). But the United Fund"--a purported VEBA trust with essentially the same terms and employer-trustee"-- actually ended up administering it." D. Eligibility for Death Benefits The Pinns were the owners ofPBC and so they couldn'tjoin the union representing th

David R. & Diane Pinn, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2013-45 · 2013

Larry G. & Maria A. Walton Mitchell, Petitioner 131 T.C. No. 15 · 2008

210 (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Federal statutes then governing military retirement pay prevented State courts from treating military retirement pay as community property. In response to McCarty, Congress enacted in 1982 the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1983, Pub. L. 97-252, sec. 1002, 96 Stat. 730 (1982), which added section 1408 to title 10 of the United States Code. Under 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(c)(1) (2006), a State court may treat disposable military retired pay in a div

Barkley v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 2004-287 · 2004

1002(7) (2000) as: any employee or former employee of an employer, or any member or former member of an employee organization, who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such employer or members of such organization, or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive an

Maria Antoinette Walton Mitchell & Larry G. Mitchell, Petitioners · 2004

730, which added section 1408 to title 10 of the United States Code (hereinafter 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408).9 Under 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408(c)(1) (2000), a State court may treat disposable military retired pay in a divorce proceeding either as property solely of the servicemember or as property of the military retiree and his or her spous

Witcher v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 2002-292 · 2002

730-735 (1982). The provisions of 10 U.S.C. sec. 1408, Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court orders, relevant to the case at hand provide as follows: (a) Definitions.--In this section: (1) The term “court” means-- (A) any court of competent jurisdiction of any State * * * * * * * * * * (2) The term “court o

The Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, In Its Capacity As Plan Administrator, Petitioner 117 T.C. No. 19 · 2001

1002 (23) is “an individual’s accrued benefit”, we find no indication that this term has a different meaning for purposes of sec. 411(d)(6). - 16 - benefits which he would have received. [S. Rept. 93-383, at 45 (1974), 1974-3 C.B. (Supp.) 80, 124.5] There appears to be only one case that has addressed the issue of whether a retirement supplem

Shepherd v. Commissioner 115 T.C. No. 30 · 2000

60-percent of the value of the transferred property because the taxpayers’ 40-percent stock interest was increased proportionately by the transfer and that such increase was analogous to receipt of consideration. The Court of Appeals agreed citing sec. 1002, 1939 I.R.C., which contains the same language as the current version of sec. 2512(b). See id. at 152- 153. - 62 - undivided interests in the leased property. Petitioner never transferred 25-percent fractional interests in the leased propert

Shepherd v. Commissioner 115 T.C. 376 · 2000

60 percent of the value of the transferred property because the taxpayers’ 40-percent stock interest was increased proportionately by the transfer and that such increase was analogous to receipt of consideration. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing sec. 1002, I.R.C. 1939, which contains the same language as the current version of sec. 2512(b). See id. at 152-153. Although the majority describe the gifts as “undivided 25-percent interests in the leased land”, majority op. p. 389, the 15-percent

Aeroquip-Vickers, Inc. and Subsidiaries , f.k.a. Trinova Corporation and Subsidiaries, Petitioners 108 T.C. No. 6 · 1997

In sum, we hold for petitioner on the issue of the recapture of the investment tax credit.

Estate of Willis Edward Clack, Deceased; Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company, Co-Personal Representative; & Richard E. Clack, Co-Personal Representative, Petitioners 106 T.C. No. 6 · 1996

Venue for such appeals was set forth in section 1002 of the Revenue Act of 1926.

Estate of Clack v. Commissioner 106 T.C. 131 · 1996

Because of the definition of “person (other than an individual)” to include an estate and confusion as to where returns were to be filed, the cases construing section 1002 of the Revenue Act of 1926 are not on point or particularly helpful in the present inquiry.

Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Commissioner 117 T.C. 220 · 2001

Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc., Petitioner 115 T.C. No. 19 · 2000

Albertson's, Inc. v. Commissioner 95 T.C. 415 · 1990

Linwood Cemetery Ass'n v. Commissioner 87 T.C. 1314 · 1986

Magneson v. Commissioner 81 T.C. 767 · 1983

Paulsen v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 291 · 1982

Hauser v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 930 · 1982

Pappas v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 1078 · 1982

Guest v. Commissioner 77 T.C. 9 · 1981

California Federal Life Insurance v. Commissioner 76 T.C. 107 · 1981

Crowley, Milner & Co. v. Commissioner 76 T.C. 1030 · 1981

Tilford v. Commissioner 75 T.C. 134 · 1980

Griffith v. Commissioner 73 T.C. 933 · 1980

Yamamoto v. Commissioner 73 T.C. 946 · 1980

Danenberg v. Commissioner 73 T.C. 370 · 1979

Miele v. Commissioner 72 T.C. 284 · 1979

McShain v. Commissioner 71 T.C. 998 · 1979

Estate of Wiggins v. Commissioner 72 T.C. 701 · 1979

Watson v. Commissioner 69 T.C. 544 · 1978

Leslie Co. v. Commissioner 64 T.C. 247 · 1975

Carrieres v. Commissioner 64 T.C. 959 · 1975

Kass v. Commissioner 60 T.C. 218 · 1973

Aagaard v. Commissioner 56 T.C. 191 · 1971

Estate of Reynolds v. Commissioner 55 T.C. 172 · 1970

Vaira v. Commissioner 52 T.C. 986 · 1969

Abegg v. Commissioner 50 T.C. 145 · 1968

Estate of Bomash v. Commissioner 50 T.C. 667 · 1968

Meyer v. Commissioner 46 T.C. 65 · 1966

John Town, Inc. v. Commissioner 46 T.C. 107 · 1966

Estate of Glen v. Commissioner 45 T.C. 323 · 1966

Wilson v. Commissioner 46 T.C. 334 · 1966

Haserot v. Commissioner 46 T.C. 864 · 1966

Baan v. Commissioner 45 T.C. 71 · 1965

Rogers v. Commissioner 44 T.C. 126 · 1965

Madison Fund, Inc. v. Commissioner 43 T.C. 215 · 1964

Macabe Co. v. Commissioner 42 T.C. 1105 · 1964

Estate of Gregory v. Commissioner 39 T.C. 1012 · 1963

Riley v. Commissioner 37 T.C. 932 · 1962

Turman v. Commissioner 35 T.C. 1123 · 1961

Bowyer v. Commissioner 33 T.C. 660 · 1960

Howard v. Commissioner 32 T.C. 1284 · 1959

Deal v. Commissioner 29 T.C. 730 · 1958

Chase National Bank v. Commissioner 25 T.C. 617 · 1955

Showell v. Commissioner 23 T.C. 495 · 1954

In re: Eric S. Gilbert v. · Cir.

DiFelice v. U.S. Airways, Inc. 497 F.3d 410 · Cir.

Grand Canyon University v. Miguel Cardona 121 F.4th 717 · Cir.

Singh v. Deloitte LLP · Cir.

Liberty University, Inc. v. Jacob Lew 733 F.3d 72 · Cir.

Duke v. Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp. · Cir.

Durand v. Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. 560 F.3d 436 · Cir.

Finkel v. Romanowicz 577 F.3d 79 · Cir.

Hirt v. EQUITABLE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES 533 F.3d 102 · Cir.

Williams v. Rohm and Haas Pension Plan 497 F.3d 710 · Cir.

Battoni v. IBEW Local Union No. 102 Employee Pension Plan 594 F.3d 230 · Cir.

Sunder v. U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan 586 F.3d 593 · Cir.

Wetzler v. Illinois CPA Society & Foundation Retirement Income Plan 586 F.3d 1053 · Cir.

Lonecke v. CitiGroup Pension Plan 584 F.3d 457 · Cir.

Thornton v. Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Supplemental Retirement & Disability Fund 566 F.3d 597 · Cir.

Tasker v. DHL Retirement Savings Plan 621 F.3d 34 · Cir.

Campbell v. BankBoston, N.A. 327 F.3d 1 · Cir.

Lalonde v. Textron, Inc. 369 F.3d 1 · Cir.

Boos v. AT&T, INC. 643 F.3d 127 · Cir.

Carter v. Pension Plan of A. Finkl & Sons Co. 654 F.3d 719 · Cir.

Renfro v. Unisys Corp. 671 F.3d 314 · Cir.

In Re: Citigroup Pension Plan ERISA · Cir.

Finkel v. Whiffen Electric Co. · Cir.

Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers & Agents 533 F.3d 102 · Cir.

Bonneau v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 51 Pension Trust Fund Ex Rel. Bolton 736 F.3d 33 · Cir.

Brenda Tolbert v. RBC Capital Markets Corp. 758 F.3d 619 · Cir.

Bonnie Fish v. Greatbanc Trust Company 749 F.3d 671 · Cir.

Cyril Korte v. HHS 735 F.3d 654 · Cir.

Randal Andersen v. Dhl Retirement Pension Plan 766 F.3d 1205 · Cir.

Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc. 772 F.3d 1056 · Cir.

William Pender v. Bank of America Corporation 788 F.3d 354 · Cir.

Munro-Kienstra v. Carpenters' Health & Welfare Trust Fund 790 F.3d 799 · Cir.

Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Plumbing Services, Inc. 791 F.3d 436 · Cir.

Jeffrey Perelman v. Raymond Perelman 793 F.3d 368 · Cir.

Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell · Cir.

Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 794 F.3d 272 · Cir.

Catholic Health Care System v. Burwell 796 F.3d 207 · Cir.

Grace Schools v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell · Cir.

Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Be v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell · Cir.

Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services 801 F.3d 927 · Cir.

Dordt College v. Sylvia M. Burwell 801 F.3d 946 · Cir.

Griggs v. E I DuPont · Cir.

Minadeo v. ICI Paints · Cir.

West v. AK Steel Corporation 484 F.3d 395 · Cir.

Jennifer Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, I · Cir.

Charles Thornton v. Graphic Commmunications Conference · Cir.

King, Michael R. v. Tecumseh Metal · Cir.

Garratt, Reg G. v. Knowles, James E. 245 F.3d 941 · Cir.

Heinz, Thomas E. v. Central Laborers Pen · Cir.

Berger, David v. Xerox Retirement · Cir.

Cler, Barbara v. IL Educ Association 423 F.3d 726 · Cir.

Williams, Gary v. Rohm and Haas Pensio · Cir.

Thomas Wetzler v. Illinois CPA Society & Foundat · Cir.

Burstein v. Retirement Account Plan for Employees of Allegheny Health Education & Research Foundation 334 F.3d 365 · Cir.

In Re Schering-Plough Corp. Erisa Litigation 420 F.3d 231 · Cir.

Sandra J. Chronister v. Baptist Health 442 F.3d 648 · Cir.

Edward Sunder v. U.S. Bank Pension Plan · Cir.

Musmeci v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc. 332 F.3d 339 · Cir.

Laurence Kaplan v. Saint Peter's Healthcare Syste 810 F.3d 175 · Cir.

Thomas Perez, Secretary v. Herbert Bruister 823 F.3d 250 · Cir.

Am. Psychiatric Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. · Cir.

Mary Smith v. Regional Transit Authority, e 827 F.3d 412 · Cir.

Bodine v. Employers Casualty Co. 352 F.3d 245 · Cir.

Kelley v. Fidelity Management Trust Co. 829 F.3d 55 · Cir.

Starla Rollins v. Dignity Health 830 F.3d 900 · Cir.

Associated Builders & Contractors Inc. v. City of Jersey City 836 F.3d 412 · Cir.

William Lee v. Verizon Communications, Inc. 837 F.3d 523 · Cir.

Daniel Soehnlen v. Fleet Owners Ins. Fund 844 F.3d 576 · Cir.

Pasternack v. Shrader 863 F.3d 162 · Cir.

Carolyn Lazar v. Mark Kroncke 862 F.3d 1186 · Cir.

Retirement Committee of DAK Americas LLC v. Brewer 867 F.3d 471 · Cir.

Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives 877 F.3d 1213 · Cir.

Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor 885 F.3d 360 · Cir.

United States v. Corey Grant 887 F.3d 131 · Cir.

Ky. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Seven Counties Servs., Inc. 901 F.3d 718 · Cir.

Peace v. American General Life Insurance 462 F.3d 437 · Cir.

Walid Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co. · Cir.

Petersen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue 924 F.3d 1111 · Cir.

Dan Wilson v. Safelite Group, Inc. 930 F.3d 429 · Cir.

Sheilar Smith v. OSF Healthcare System 933 F.3d 859 · Cir.

Sheilar Smith v. OSF Healthcare System · Cir.

32BJ N. Pension Fund v. Nutrition Mgmt. Servs. Co. 935 F.3d 93 · Cir.

United States v. Vahan Kelerchian 937 F.3d 895 · Cir.

United States v. Vahan Kelerchian · Cir.

Michael Holland v. Westmoreland Coal Compan 968 F.3d 526 · Cir.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. Ca Secure Choice Retire. Svg. 997 F.3d 848 · Cir.

Sacerdote v. New York University 9 F.4th 95 · Cir.

Sofco Erectors, Inc. v. Trustees of the Ohio Operating Eng'rs Pension Fund 15 F.4th 407 · Cir.

Donna Browe v. CTC Corp. · Cir.

In Re Citigroup ERISA Litigation 662 F.3d 128 · Cir.

Milgram v. ORTHOPEDIC ASSOC. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION 666 F.3d 68 · Cir.

Muto v. CBS Corp. 668 F.3d 53 · Cir.

Shaver v. Siemens Corp. 670 F.3d 462 · Cir.

Nichols Ex Rel. Alcatel Network Systems Salaried Retirees Benefit Program v. Alcatel USA, Inc. 532 F.3d 364 · Cir.

ACS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. v. Griffin 676 F.3d 512 · Cir.

Crowell v. Shell Oil Co. 541 F.3d 295 · Cir.

Soto v. Disney Severance Pay Plan 26 F.4th 114 · Cir.

United States v. Skilling 554 F.3d 529 · Cir.

In re: Howard D. Juntoff · Cir.

United States v. Wofford 560 F.3d 341 · Cir.

Rocco v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund 281 F.3d 62 · Cir.

Becker v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 281 F.3d 372 · Cir.

Hagwood v. Newton 282 F.3d 285 · Cir.

Chao v. Hall Holding Co. 285 F.3d 415 · Cir.

Zylla v. Unisys Corp. 57 F. App'x 79 · Cir.

Michael R. King, Mark D. Urbanski, Donald E. Renfro v. National Human Resource Committee, Inc. 218 F.3d 719 · Cir.

David T. Hunter (99-3620) Robert Allison (99-3623) v. Caliber System, Inc., F/k/a Roadway Services, Inc. 220 F.3d 702 · Cir.

Joseph D. Griggs v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, Joseph D. Griggs v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company 237 F.3d 371 · Cir.

The Board of Trustees of the Equity-League Pension Trust Fund v. Cheryl Royce, and Kate MacLeod 238 F.3d 177 · Cir.

Reg G. Garratt v. James E. Knowles, Nancy Knowles, Charles L. Knowles, Katherine Knowles Strasburg, Margaret Knowles Schink, E. Lawrence Keyes, R. Euguene Goodson, Defrees & Fisk and John W. Hupp 245 F.3d 941 · Cir.

Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Affiliated Subsidiary Companies v. United States 270 F.3d 135 · Cir.

Thomas Rocco v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension And Retirement Fund 281 F.3d 62 · Cir.

Larry Becker v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 281 F.3d 372 · Cir.

Hagwood v. Newton 282 F.3d 285 · Cir.

Chao v. Hall Holding Company, Inc. 285 F.3d 415 · Cir.

Russell Mushalla v. Teamsters Local No. 863 Pension Fund 300 F.3d 391 · Cir.

John Bauer v. Summit Bancorp 325 F.3d 155 · Cir.

William H. Burstein, M.D. v. Retirement Account Plan For Employees Of Allegheny Health Education And Research Foundation 334 F.3d 365 · Cir.

David Berger and Gerry Tsupros, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Xerox Corporation Retirement Income Guarantee Plan 338 F.3d 755 · Cir.

United States v. Vondette 352 F.3d 772 · Cir.

Walter Dean v. National Production Workers Un 46 F.4th 535 · Cir.

Data Marketing Partnership v. LABR 45 F.4th 846 · Cir.

Andrew Albert v. Oshkosh Corporation 47 F.4th 570 · Cir.

Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc-Pension Fund v. Kero Leasing Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation Robert C. Holmes, a Proprietor, Individually, Jointly and Severally Holmes Leasing Company, a Proprietorship Robert C. Holmes v. Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.-Pension Fund Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey, Welfare Fund, Inc.-Pension Fund, Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc-Pension Fund v. Kero Leasing Corporation, a New Jersey Corporation Robert C. Holmes, a Proprietor, Individually, Jointly and Severally Holmes Leasing Company, a Proprietorship Robert C. Holmes v. Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.-Pension Fund Robert C. Holmes 377 F.3d 288 · Cir.

Ernst v. Roberts 379 F.3d 373 · Cir.

Gualandi v. Adams 385 F.3d 236 · Cir.

Arnold v. Lucks 392 F.3d 512 · Cir.

Christina Murphy Minadeo v. Ici Paints D/B/A the Glidden Company 398 F.3d 751 · Cir.

In Re: Schering-Plough Corporation Erisa Litigation, Jingdong Zhu, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Adrian Fields, on Behalf of Himself/herself and All Others Similarly Situated 420 F.3d 231 · Cir.

Cler v. Illinois Education Association 423 F.3d 726 · Cir.

Sandra J. Chronister v. Baptist Health Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Sandra J. Chronister v. Baptist Health Unum Life Insurance Company of America 442 F.3d 648 · Cir.

Briscoe v. Fine 444 F.3d 478 · Cir.

Joseph Henry v. Champlain Enterprises, Inc. 445 F.3d 610 · Cir.

Retail Industry Leaders Association v. James D. Fielder, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Maryland Secretary of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, American Association of Retired Persons Medicaid Matters!maryland Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative Education Fund, Incorporated, Amici Supporting National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation Maryland Chamber of Commerce Secretary of Labor Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Society for Human Resource Management the Hr Policy Association American Benefits Council, Amici Supporting Retail Industry Leaders Association v. James D. Fielder, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Maryland Secretary of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation Maryland Chamber of Commerce Secretary of Labor Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Society for Human Resource Management the Hr Policy Association American Benefits Council, Amici Supporting American Association of Retired Persons Medicaid Matters!maryland Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative Education Fund, Incorporated, Amici Supporting 475 F.3d 180 · Cir.

West v. Ak Steel Corporation 484 F.3d 395 · Cir.

David McCorkle v. Bank of America Corporation 688 F.3d 164 · Cir.

Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund v. CPC Logistics, Inc. 698 F.3d 346 · Cir.

National Security Systems, Inc. v. Iola 700 F.3d 65 · Cir.

American Psychiatric Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. 821 F.3d 352 · Cir.

United States v. Vondette 352 F.3d 772 · Cir.

Gualandi v. Adams 385 F.3d 236 · Cir.

Arnold v. Lucks 392 F.3d 512 · Cir.

Henry v. Champlain Enterprises, Inc. 445 F.3d 610 · Cir.

Coan v. Kaufman 457 F.3d 250 · Cir.

Gray v. Citigroup Inc. 662 F.3d 128 · Cir.

Milgram v. Orthopedic Associates Defined Contribution Pension Plan 666 F.3d 68 · Cir.

Alcantara v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund Pension Plan 751 F.3d 71 · Cir.

Coleman-Edwards v. Simpson 330 F. App'x 218 · Cir.

Leimkuehler Ex Rel. Leimkuehler, Inc. v. American United Life Insurance 713 F.3d 905 · Cir.

Haley v. TIAA · Cir.

McCutcheon v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. 62 F.4th 674 · Cir.

Julie Su v. Brian Bowers 89 F.4th 1169 · Cir.

Cunningham v. Cornell University 86 F.4th 961 · Cir.

Julie Su v. Brian Bowers · Cir.

§1002 — Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1901(b)(28)(B)(i), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799]

218 Citing Cases

New cases, delivered.