Case Citator › Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLC

Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLC

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
561 F.3d 478
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
393 of 393
Citing cases (total)
1,497
Treatment dates
2015
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated as to the inferences favoring vested retiree health-care benefits. All 393 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

They apply the pleading standards in Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC; their nearby adverse language concerns other authorities, principally Jones v. Bock overruling McGore v. Wrigglesworth. The separately retrieved Supreme Court decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett supplies the confirmed treatment listed below: it expressly rejects the 2009 decision’s vesting analysis under International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Yard-Man, Inc. and vacates the subsequent 2013 judgment. This treatment does not displace the 2009 decision’s pleading or subject-matter-jurisdiction rules.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,497 later cases cite Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLC; 393 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLC?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The 2009 Tackett decision’s reliance on Yard-Man inferences to infer an intent to vest retiree health-care benefits is inconsistent with ordinary contract law.

    M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    There is no doubt that Yard-Man and its progeny affected the outcome here. As in its previous decisions, the Court of Appeals here cited the “context of . . . labor-management negotiations” and reasoned that the Union likely would not have agreed to language ensuring its members a “full Company contribution” if the company could change the level of that contribution. Tackett I, 561 F. 3d, at 490 (internal quotation marks omitted). It similarly concluded that the tying of eligibility for health care benefits to receipt of pension benefits suggested an intent to vest health care benefits. Ibid. And it framed its analysis from beginning to end in light of the principles it announced in Yard-Man and its progeny. See 561 F. 3d, at 489; see also Tackett II, 733 F. 3d, at 599–600. We reject the Yard-Man inferences as inconsistent with ordinary principles of contract law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLC and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace