Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK
517 U.S. 882
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1996-06-10
- Topic
- employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation
*898Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join the Court’s opinion except for its conclusion in Part III-B that “the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction.” Ante, at 895. The legal question addressed in Part III-B is a difficult one, which we need not here answer and which would benefit from further development in the lower courts, where interested parties who are experienced in these highly :technical, important matters could present their views. ' Accordingly, I would follow the suggestion of the Solicitor General that the Court not reach the issue in this case.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the Court’s opinion except for its conclusion in Part III-B that “the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction.” Ante, at 895. The legal question addressed in Part III-B is a difficult one, which we need not here answer and which would benefit from further development in the lower courts, where interested parties who are experienced in these highly :technical, important matters could present their views. ' Accordingly, I would follow the suggestion of the Solicitor General that the Court not reach the issue in this case.