Citation network
Mccarty Vs. Mccarty
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1981
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
-
U.S. 210 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
U.S. 210 (1981) McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
and therefore each is entitled to share equally in its assets. See Page 453 U. S. 217 Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
that the result in Fithian had not been called into question by this Court's subsequent decision in Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
the federal Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 could not be divided under state community property law. See also Gorman v. GormanSearch
-
Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. at 439 U. S. 581 , with references to United States v. YazellSearch
-
U. S. 341 , 382 U. S. 352 (1966). See also Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
from a typical pension or retirement plan. The retired officer remains a member of the Army, see United States v. TylerSearch
-
Hooper v. UnitedSearch
-
this one, to conclude that military retired pay is reduced compensation for reduced current services. In United States v. TylerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
d). In Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
S.Rep. No. 91089 at 25. The House Report accompanying H.R. 10670 noted that, under Buchanan v. AlexanderSearch
-
How. 20 (1845), and Applegate v. ApplegateSearch
-
federal interests. See United States v. YazellSearch
-
cls. 12, 13, and 14. See generally Rostker v. GoldbergSearch
-
his or her retired pay still further by purchasing an annuity for the surviving spouse, if any, or children. In McCune v. EssigSearch
-
P.2d 1185 (1980), cert. pending sub nom. Miller v. MillerSearch
-
that he or she may be involuntarily transferred to a State that will divide that pay upon divorce. In Free v. BlandSearch
-
has the Court accorded Congress greater deference than in the conduct and control of military affairs. See Rostker v. GoldbergSearch
-
reaffirmed Fithian in In re Milhan, 27 Cal.3d 765, 613 P.2d 812 (1980), cert. pending sub nom. Milhan v. MilhanSearch
-
hearing, p. 1, before the California Supreme Court. The present case thus closely resembles Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
we conclude on the authority of Dahnke-Walker that this is a proper appeal. See also Japan Line, Ltd. v. CountySearch
-
U.S. at 105 U. S. 246 . (Emphasis in original.) See also Kahn v. AndersonSearch
-
Puglisi v. UnitedSearch
-
in whose service he holds retired status). The officer also may forfeit his retired pay if court-martialed. See Hooper v. UnitedSearch
-
which retired pay is calculated deprived retired military personnel of property without due process of law. Costello v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d at 427, its method of calculation could be prospectively altered under the precedent of United States v. LarionoffSearch
-
U. S. 864 , 431 U. S. 879 (1977). See also Abbott v. UnitedSearch
-
Lemly v. UnitedSearch
-
Watson v. WatsonSearch
-
Ellis v. EllisSearch
-
Colo. 317, 319, 552 P.2d 506, 507 (1976). See Fenney v. FenneySearch
-
Kruger v. KrugerSearch
-
suggests that States must tread with caution in this area, lest they disrupt the federal scheme. See Hooper v. UnitedSearch
-
the Government, we do not decide today whether California may treat active duty pay as community property. Cf. Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
discussed in Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. at 439 U. S. 588 -589. Cf. Smith v. CommandingSearch
-
by the simple expedient of an offsetting award. See Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. at 439 U. S. 588 . Cf. Free v. BlandSearch
-
The Court's opinion is curious in at least two salient respects. For all its purported reliance on Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
to a determination whether Congress has 'positively required by direct enactment' that state law be preempted. Wetmore v. MarkoeSearch
-
that there is no precedent supporting admission of this case to the exclusive club. The first such case was McCune v. EssigSearch
-
next case from this Court finding preemption of community property law did not arise until 45 years later. In Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
The next two cases, Free v. BlandSearch
-
U. S. 663 (1962), and Yiatchos v. YiatchosSearch
-
U.S. at 439 U. S. 581 (quoting Wetmore v. MarkoeSearch
-
the line. See In re Milhan, 27 Cal.3d 765, 775-776, 613 P.2d 812, 817 (1980), cert. pending sub nom. Milhan. v. MilhanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial