Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hisquierdo Vs. Hisquierdo

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 22, 1979

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

71 entries 9 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Free Vs. Bland US Supreme Court · May 21, 1962
  2. Wissner Vs. Wissner US Supreme Court · Feb 06, 1950
  3. Flemming Vs. Nestor US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1960
  4. Bender Vs. Pfaff US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1930
  5. Hopkins Vs. Bacon US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1930
  6. United States Vs. Yazell US Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1965
  7. Wetmore Vs. Markoe US Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1904
  8. Yiatchos Vs. Yiatchos US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  9. Mccune Vs. Essig US Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1905
  10. U.S. 572 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo
    Search
  11. U.S. 572 (1979) Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo
    Search
  12. Meyer v. Kinzer
    Search
  13. declined to assert jurisdiction over divorces that presented no federal question. See, e.g., Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler
    Search
  14. that state law be preempted. Wetmore v. Markoe
    Search
  15. federal interests before the Supremacy Clause will demand that state law be overridden. United States v. Yazell
    Search
  16. necessary to forestall such an injury to federal rights by state law based on community property concepts. In McCune v. Essig
    Search
  17. life insurance programs override community property law, absent fraud or breach of trust by the decedent. Yiatchos v. Yiatchos
    Search
  18. state rules for the allocation of a federal entitlement. The manipulation problem that concerned the Court in Yiatchos v. Yiatchos
    Search
  19. and Free v. Bland
    Search
  20. and not just the taxes that fall on the employee. The benefits more closely parallel the land homesteaded in McCune v. Essig
    Search
  21. here include a specified beneficiary protected by a flat prohibition against attachment and anticipation. In Wissner v. Wissner
    Search
  22. role in the statutory Page 439 U. S. 584 scheme. Like anti-attachment provisions generally, see Philpott v. Essex
    Search
  23. be changed without Page 439 U. S. 590 taking property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. See Richardson v. Belcher
    Search
  24. Ruhl v. Railroad
    Search
  25. of the Fifth Amendment and exceeded Congress' power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton
    Search
  26. to promote the general welfare. 49 Stat. 967 and 974. The operation of that legislation was enjoined. Alton R. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  27. the question whether an expectation of receiving Railroad Retirement Act benefits is community property. Compare Allen v. Allen
    Search
  28. S.W.2d 312 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston, 1962) with Eichelberger v. Eichelberger
    Search
  29. See Lagrarr v. Lagrarr
    Search
  30. Heuchan v. Heuchan
    Search
  31. Commonwealth v. Berfield
    Search
  32. whether the alimony that could be made the subject of garnishment included community property. Compare United States v. Stelter
    Search
  33. Williams v. Williams
    Search
  34. So.2d 869 (Fla. App. 1976), with Marin v. Hatfield
    Search
  35. Kelley v. Kelley
    Search
  36. In Hetrick v. Reading
    Search
  37. Railroad Retirement Act of 1974. There can be no doubt that the State is free to treat this interest as property. Herb v. Pitcairn
    Search
  38. the concrete expressions that ordinarily are required to support a finding of federal preemption, see, e.g., Wissner v. Wissner
    Search
  39. Wallis v. Pan
    Search
  40. federal statute preempts state substantive law, therefore, it is essential to understand what the state law is. Perez v. Campbell
    Search
  41. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ware
    Search
  42. reflects a concept of property and of the marital relationship entirely different from that at common law. See Poe v. Seaborn
    Search
  43. All property acquired during the marriage, however, is presumed to be community property. See, e.g., Meyer v. Kinzer
    Search
  44. The presumption is regarded as a rule of substantive property law, not one of procedure or evidence. Nilson v. Sarment
    Search
  45. Cal.524, 96 P. 315. Cf. Poe v. Seaborn
    Search
  46. Upon dissolution of the marriage, each possesses an equal and absolute right to his or her one-half interest. Meyer v. Kinzer
    Search
  47. created by act of the state legislature have been treated as community property by the California courts, Cheney v. City
    Search
  48. between the provisions of the Act and the substantive law of California. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ware
    Search
  49. New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino
    Search
  50. De Sylva v. Ballentine
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial