Citation network
Mansell Vs. Mansell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 30, 1989
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. 581 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Mansell v. MansellSearch
-
U.S. 581 (1989) Mansell v. MansellSearch
-
The Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District Syllabus in Direct Response to Mccarty V. MccartySearch
-
as community property to the extent they derive from military service performed during the marriage. See, e.g., Casas v. ThompsonSearch
-
Cal.3d 131, 139, 720 P.2d 921, 925, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1012 (1986). In McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
receive disability benefits as community property. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Casas v. ThompsonSearch
-
Congress, when it passes general legislation, rarely intends to displace state authority in this area. See, e.g., Rose v. RoseSearch
-
Hisquierdo, supra, at 439 U. S. 581 (quoting Wetmore v. MarkoeSearch
-
authority giving the States the power to treat military retirement pay as community property. Cf. Midlantic Nat. Bank v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
as here, the question is one of statutory construction, we begin with the language of the statute. See, e.g., Blum v. StensonSearch
-
Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTESearch
-
the statute as best we can, not to second-guess the wisdom of the congressional policy choice. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. UnitedSearch
-
of res judicata should have prevented this pre- McCarty property settlement from being reopened. McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
a), independently protects such pay. See, e.g., Rose v. RoseSearch
-
The primary purpose of the bill is to remove the effect of the United States Supreme Court decision in McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
Congress' Answer to McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
with both the language and the purposes of the Act, and I respectfully dissent. The Court recognized in McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
remarks of Rep. Schroeder, bill sponsor). Family law is an area traditionally of state concern, Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Wetmore v. MarkoeSearch
-
Casas v. ThompsonSearch
-
Section 3101(a) is designed to ensure that the needs of disabled veterans and their families are met, see Rose v. RoseSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Mansell v. MansellSearch
-
In McCarty v. McCartySearch
-
Cf. Midlantic Nat. Bank v. NewSearch
-
Rodriguez v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial