The petition of the day is:

17-1247

Issue: Whether—when with the intention to create or assign rights to advantages below a state’s home family members regulations to an individual instead of the designated beneficiary of a plan topic to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the courtroom should “clearly specif[y]” the data required by way of 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(three)(C)—an order “clearly specifies” the required data when the data will also be inferred from the paperwork as a complete, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the sixth Circuit has held; when the data is supplied in strict compliance with the statute’s necessities on the order’s face, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the second and 10th Circuits have held; when the plan administrator has reason why to grasp the required data, although apparently nowhere in the order, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the seventh Circuit and two state prime courts have held; or, if none of the ones requirements observe, what is needed for a home family members order to “clearly specif[y]” the data required by way of 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(three)(C).

Posted in Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Jackson, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation:
Aurora Barnes,
Petition of the day,
SCOTUSblog (Apr. 16, 2018, five:30 PM),
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/petition-of-the-day-1364/