Chapman v. Supplemental Benefit Retiremen, et al

Plaintiff - Appellant: GARY CHAPMAN
Defendant - Appellee: SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN OF LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES and LIN TELEVISION CORP, individually and as Administrator and Fiduciary of the Supplemental Retirement Plan of LIN Television Corporation and Subsidiary Companies
Case Number: 12-1779
Filed: June 21, 2012
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Nature of Suit: Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

Search for this case: Chapman v. Supplemental Benefit Retiremen, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff - appellant: GARY CHAPMAN
Represented By: Michael Sharif Baig
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant - appellee: SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN OF LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
Represented By: Thomas C. Angelone
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant - appellee: LIN TELEVISION CORP, individually and as Administrator and Fiduciary of the Supplemental Retirement Plan of LIN Television Corporation and Subsidiary Companies
Represented By: Thomas C. Angelone
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.