Citation network
Rose Vs. Rose
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 1987
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. 619 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. RoseSearch
-
U.S. 619 (1987) Rose v. RoseSearch
-
that disability benefits are intended to provide compensation for disabled veterans and their families. Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
U. S. 655 , Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
U. S. 572 , and Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
id. at 3a, citing McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
Hisquierdo, supra, at 439 U. S. 581 , quoting Wetmore v. MarkoeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Hisquierdo, supra, at 439 U. S. 581 , quoting United States v. YazellSearch
-
that its underlying purposes should nevertheless be deemed controlling here. These purposes, identified in Johnson v. RobisonSearch
-
a) against attachment, levy, or seizure of federal benefits. In Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
state community property law and a federal statute providing retirement benefits for railroad employees. Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
Id. at 439 U. S. 587 . Page 481 U. S. 633 We visited Wissner once again in Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
state courts may award alimony or child support out of benefits paid to a disabled veteran. Compare, e.g., Parker v. ParkerSearch
-
Pishue v. PishueSearch
-
Gaskins v. Security-FirstSearch
-
Consistent with the distinction suggested in Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
disdains -- the distinction between familial support obligations and other debts. The Court apparently views Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
U.S. at 454 U. S. 76 , quoting Schlaefer v. SchlaeferSearch
-
a family member's claim for support. In discussing the very similar anti-attachment provision at issue in Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
a) shield the beneficiary from the support claims of his spouse and children. Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
a), its predecessors, and similar statutes do not make the support obligation unenforceable. Mims v. MimsSearch
-
Smolin v. FirstSearch
-
Dillard v. DillardSearch
-
Voelkel v. TohulkaSearch
-
Hannah v. HannahSearch
-
Stirgus v. StirgusSearch
-
Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
to which finality and conclusiveness can attach. See Johnson v. RobisonSearch
-
veteran -- a proposition which, as JUSTICE O'CONNOR's concurrence notes, rests uneasily with our decision in Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
or even specifically requires him to use them to satisfy his obligation. Page 481 U. S. 644 Cf. Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
Brown v. BrownSearch
-
As the Court apparently recognizes, albeit grudgingly, under Wissner v. PageSearch
-
this case, see ante at 481 U. S. 633 -634. The Court's decision is also inconsistent with Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, Pub.L. 97-252, Tit. X (1982), following this Court's decision in McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. RoseSearch
-
and Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
Johnson v. RobisonSearch
-
In Wissner v. WissnerSearch
-
Parker v. ParkerSearch
-
Schlaefer v. SchlaeferSearch
-
Mims v. MimsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial