Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Operating Engineers' Local 428 Pension Trust Fund v. Zamborskygreen1 sentence1986Prior to that amendment, “federal courts [had] specifically approved of garnishment of ERISA pension plan benefits by writ of execution [see § 4380] to satisfy support arrearages.” ( Williams, supra, at p. 762 ; see also, Operating Engineers, etc. v. Zamborsky (9th Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 196 , 200.) The Williams court essentially found that California courts have concurrent jurisdiction in such matters. | 1 | 1 |
Phillipson v. Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement Systemred2 sentences1986The garnishment does not ‘relate to’ an employee benefit plan as required for preemption under 29 United States Code section 1144 (a).” (Id., at p. 764; cf. Phillipson v. Board of Administration (1970) 3 Cal.3d 32, 44, 46-47 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 61 , 473 P.2d 765 ].) We find no significance in the fact that Congress amended ERISA specifically to exempt “qualified domestic relations orders” from its provisions, but did not include a similar exemption for orders awarding attorney’s fees incurred to obtain such orders. 1986The garnishment does not ‘relate to’ an employee benefit plan as required for preemption under 29 United States Code section 1144 (a).” (Id., at p. 764; cf. Phillipson v. Board of Administration (1970) 3 Cal.3d 32, 44, 46-47 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 61 , 473 P.2d 765 ].) We find no significance in the fact that Congress amended ERISA specifically to exempt “qualified domestic relations orders” from its provisions, but did not include a similar exemption for orders awarding attorney’s fees incurred to obtain such orders. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carmona v. Carmona
green
2 sentences2009As a result, state domestic relations orders (`DROs') that comply with statutory requirements are exempt from both the anti-alienation and preemption provisions of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (b)(7); 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3); Hamilton, 433 F.3d at 1096 n. 5." ( Carmona, supra, 544 F.3d at p. 998 .) *840 "More recently, Congress further refined the statutory framework with the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (`REA'), Pub.L. 2009As a result, state domestic relations orders (`DROs') that comply with statutory requirements are exempt from both the anti-alienation and preemption provisions of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (b)(7); 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3); Hamilton, 433 F.3d at 1096 n. 5." ( Carmona, supra, 544 F.3d at p. 998 .) *840 "More recently, Congress further refined the statutory framework with the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (`REA'), Pub.L. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees v. Rudolph G. Gago, and Elizabeth J. Kassa
green
2 sentences1985Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Emp. v. Gago (7th Cir. 1983) 717 F.2d 1038 , a Wisconsin court order directing a retirement fund to pay an employee's spouse a portion of retirement monies was affirmed. 1985(In re Marriage of Johnston, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d 900, 909 .) In the recent case of Sav. & Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Emp. v. Gago (7th Cir. 1983) 717 F.2d 1038 , a Wisconsin court order directing a retirement fund to pay an employee’s spouse a portion of retirement monies was affirmed. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
In Re Marriage of Johnston
green
2 sentences1985The garnishment does not "relate to" an employee benefit plan as required for preemption under 29 United States Code section 1144 (a). ( In re Marriage of Johnston, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d 900 , 909.) In the recent case of Sav. 1985(In re Marriage of Johnston, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d 900, 909 .) In the recent case of Sav. & Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Emp. v. Gago (7th Cir. 1983) 717 F.2d 1038 , a Wisconsin court order directing a retirement fund to pay an employee’s spouse a portion of retirement monies was affirmed. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.