CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Thole v. U.S. Bank

2020 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 22, 2026
Entity authorityQ114195631 ↗
Source-derived summary

Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. 538 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan who are guaranteed a fixed payment each month regardless of the plan’s value or its fiduciaries' investment decisions lack Article III standing to bring a lawsuit against the fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

References

External links

Text of Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., No.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Thole v. U.S. Bank” as 2020 United States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2020, 1974—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Thole, Bank and United can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as 2020 United States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q114195631. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2020 and 1974.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Thole v. U.S. Bank”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Thole v. U.S. Bank primary sources, Thole v. U.S. Bank archive and Thole research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Thole v. U.S. Bank”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Thole v. U.S. Bank” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.