Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mackey Vs. Lanier Collection Agcy.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 17, 1988

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

67 entries 2 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Fha Vs. Burr US Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1940
  2. Pilot Life Ins. Co. Vs. Dedeaux US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1987
  3. Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  4. Collection Agcy. - 486 U.S. 825 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  5. Collection Agcy., 486 U.S. 825 (1988) Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  6. plans. The state statute's express reference to ERISA plans brings it within the federal law's preemptive reach. Shaw v. Delta
    Search
  7. its sphere, including those that are consistent with ERISA's substantive requirements. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  8. Shaw v. Delta
    Search
  9. a). See, e.g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search
  10. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  11. a). Cf. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search
  12. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  13. garnishment procedure is preempted by ERISA. We reserved decision on the issue in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Construction
    Search
  14. a) is not limited to such state laws. See, e.g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search
  15. supra, at 481 U. S. 47 -48, and Shaw v. Delta
    Search
  16. plan in federal court, defers to state law to provide methods for collecting judgments. Cf. also Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln
    Search
  17. regulatory scheme like ERISA, such omissions are significant ones. Cf. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  18. Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan
    Search
  19. Cf. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
    Search
  20. United Airlines, Inc. v. Page
    Search
  21. later Congress as to the meaning of a law enacted 10 years earlier does not control the issue. United Airlines, Inc. v. McMann
    Search
  22. Teamsters v. United
    Search
  23. state law attachments of welfare benefit plans) was the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Construction
    Search
  24. a) that Judge Tang expressed in dissent in that case, 679 F.2d at 1310-1311. See, e.g., Misic v. Building
    Search
  25. Pension Trust Fund v. Nevarez
    Search
  26. ERISA welfare benefit plans. See, e.g., Local Union 212, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Vacation Trust Fund v. Local
    Search
  27. First Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Latiker
    Search
  28. Electrical Workers Credit Union v. IBEW-NECA
    Search
  29. Morris v. Local
    Search
  30. Luxemburg v. Hotel
    Search
  31. Abofreka v. Alston
    Search
  32. to garnishment and attachment in our more recent cases, as well. See, e.g., Franchise Tax Board of California v. USPS
    Search
  33. Antico v. Antico
    Search
  34. Easterwood v. LeBlanc
    Search
  35. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
    Search
  36. FEC v. National
    Search
  37. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar
    Search
  38. United States v. Generix
    Search
  39. Dickerson v. New
    Search
  40. Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn. v. Abbott
    Search
  41. Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE
    Search
  42. Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans
    Search
  43. a) is not limited to state laws specifically designed to affect employee benefit plans. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search
  44. a) is not limited to state laws that conflict with the substantive provisions of ERISA. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  45. Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search
  46. employee benefit plans are not tenuous, remote, or peripheral, and that such laws are accordingly preempted. See Shaw v. Delta
    Search
  47. Ante at 486 U. S. 840 , quoting United States v. Price
    Search
  48. for enforcing judgments. See ante at 486 U. S. 834 , n. 9, citing Franchise Tax Board of California v. USPS
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Mackey v. Lanier
    Search
  50. Cf. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial