v. Neusser, 810 F.2d 550, 556 (6th Cir.1987); General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Castonguay, 984 F.2d 1518, 1521 (9th Cir.1993) (stating that “the key to distinguishing between what ERISA preempts and what it does not lies ... in recognizing that the statute [ERISA] comprehensively regulates certain relationships: for instance, the relationship between plan and plan member, between plan and employer, between employer and employee (to the extent an employee benefit plan is involved), and between plan and trustee”). PLI’s preemption argument rests entirely on the broad interpretation given to the jurisdictional terms “relate to.” 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). According to PLI, the mere reference to the Martin Oil pension plan in the instant ease requires preemption. 09 F.Supp. 388, 391 (E.D.Cal.1981) (<HOLDING>). Given the dearth of West Virginia law on this
holding that in light of the presumption against preemption there is no field preemption of state unfair competition claims that rely on a substantial question of federal patent law because congress has not expressed its clear and manifest intention to preempt that area of law holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding that review is de novo where there has been no adjudication on the merits in state court holding that where the state law has only an indirect effect on the plan and where it is one of general application which pertains to an area of important state concern the court should find there has been no preemption holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court