William Rabinak v. United Brotherhood of Carpente
| WILLIAM RABINAK |
| UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS PENSION FUND |
| 15-1717 |
| April 2, 2015 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Employee Retirement |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Rabinak v. United Bhd. of Carpenters Pension Fund
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
702820910
Filed opinion of the court by Judge Williams. AFFIRMED. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge and Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge. [6774483-1] [6774483] [15-1717]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: William Rabinak v. United Brotherhood of Carpente | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellant: WILLIAM RABINAK | |
| Represented By: | Sean Morales-Doyle |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee: UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS PENSION FUND | |
| Represented By: | John T. Decarlo |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
