Shelby Collins v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund of 1950, W. A. Boyle, Josephine Roche, C. W. Davis, Trustees
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Quentin Ira Lincoln (8th Cir. 1980)
- Pete v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare & Retirement Fund of 1950 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
- Malone v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)
- Brown v. United States (D.C. 1975)
- United States v. Mamie E. Perkins (D.C. Cir. 1974)
- Kiser v. Huge (D.C. Cir. 1974)
- State v. Close (Utah 1972)
- Andrea Depaoli v. W. A. Boyle (D.C. Cir. 1971)
- Williams, Issac (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)
- Central Tool Co. v. International Ass'n of Machinists National Pension Fund, Benefit Plan A (D.C. Cir. 1987)
- Seafarers Pension Plan v. Claude M. Sturgis (4th Cir. 1980)
- Knauss v. Gorman (3d Cir. 1978)
- Carlone v. United Mine Workers Of America Welfare & Retirement Fund (W. Va. 1978)
- Knauss v. Gorman (3d Cir. 1978)
- Mosley v. National Maritime Union Pension & Welfare Plan (District Court, E.D. New York 1977)
- French v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)
- Kiser v. Huge (D.C. Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Patricia Dent (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Michael H. Hinkle (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- Patterson v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare & Retirement Fund (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1971)
- Taylor Roark v. W. A. Boyle Maude W. Reese, of the Last Will and Testament of Joe S. Rees v. W. A. Boyle Theo R. Fuller v. W. A. Boyle (D.C. Cir. 1970)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court ordering the appellant Fund to pay a pension to appellee Collins. Collins, like appellants in Roark et al. v. Boyle, 439 F.2d 497, decided today, had applied for a pension and been rejected on the ground that his last employment in the coal industry was not with a signatory employer. The District Court held this requirement invalid as being arbitrary and capricious. We affirm for the reasons set forth in our Roark opinion.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.