Citation network
Boggs Vs. Boggs
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 02, 1997
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. 833 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Boggs V. BoggsSearch
-
of this direct clash between state law and ERISA's provisions and objectives, the state law cannot stand. See Gade v. NationalSearch
-
provides powerful support for the conclusion that the right does not exist. Cf. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. RussellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
laws have, in the past, been pre-empted in order to prevent the diversion of retirement benefits. See, e. g., Free v. BlandSearch
-
s decision is in substantial conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Ablamis v. RoperSearch
-
the subject having come before the Court in the current Term alone, see California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. DillinghamSearch
-
De Buono V. Nysa-IlaSearch
-
within the traditional domain of the States. These considerations inform our pre-emption analysis. See Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSearch
-
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
Gade v. NationalSearch
-
in the proper context. The principal object of the statute is to protect plan participants and beneficiaries. See Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
support 848 for the conclusion that the right does not exist. Cf. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. RussellSearch
-
that Congress is unlikely to have intended to intrude upon. See Rose v. RoseSearch
-
federal question, 444 U. S. 1028 (1980), and, although not entitled to full precedential weight, see Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
U. S. 651 , 670-671 (1974), that disposition constitutes a decision on the merits, see Hicks v. MirandaSearch
-
Marriage of Campa was not alone in refusing to find ERISA pre-emption in the divorce context. See, e. g., Stone v. StoneSearch
-
Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees v. GagoSearch
-
Eichelberger v. EichelbergerSearch
-
d)(2), (d)(3)(A), which are not subject to judicial expansion. See Guidry v. SheetSearch
-
requirements are met. Under Louisiana law community property interests are enforceable against a plan. See Eskine v. EskineSearch
-
in the past, been preempted in order to ensure the implementation of a federal statutory scheme. See, e. g., McCune v. EssigSearch
-
cf. Ridgway v. RidgwaySearch
-
U. S. 46 (1981). Free v. BlandSearch
-
T. L. James & Co. v. MontgomerySearch
-
Hare v. HodginsSearch
-
Sims v. SimsSearch
-
a plan. California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. DillinghamSearch
-
Dillingham, supra, at 324 (quoting New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. TravelersSearch
-
Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645 , 655 (1995)). Cf. Malone v. WhiteSearch
-
Garner v. TeamstersSearch
-
management of pension and welfare benefit funds themselves, Dillingham, supra, at 326-327 (citing Massachusetts v. MorashSearch
-
benefit plans purchase, such as apprenticeship training programs, 519 U. S., at 332-334, or medical benefits, De Buono v. NYSA-ILASearch
-
law in question involves family, property, and probate-all areas of traditional, and important, state concern. Rose v. RoseSearch
-
Dillingham, supra, at 325 (quoting Rice v. SantaSearch
-
relations, where Congress intended to leave private parties to work out certain matters on their own. See Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
purpose of establishing uniform laws to regulate the administration of pension funds. Cf. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSearch
-
nor is there reason to believe Louisiana law would produce such a case. (Eskine v. EskineSearch
-
or funded by the Federal Government. See Mansell v. MansellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial