15 U.S.C. § 1677

Effect on State laws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person from complying with, the laws of any State(1) prohibiting garnishments or providing for more limited garnishment than are allowed under this subchapter, or(2) prohibiting the discharge of any employee by reason of the fact that his earnings have been subjected to garnishment for more than one indebtedness.(Pub. L. 90–321, title III, § 307, May 29, 1968, 82 Stat. 164.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases, 1971–2015 · leading case: Hodgson v. Cleveland Mun. Court, 326 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. Ohio 1971).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hodgson v. Cleveland Mun. Court, 326 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. Ohio 1971). · cites it 6× “Defendants, in substance, ask this court to resort to 15 U.S.C. § 1677 (1970), the anchor section of this title, to blunt the preemptive effect of sections 1673(a) and (c).”

Marshall v. Safeway, Inc., 88 A.3d 735 (Md. 2014). · cites it 2× “Although neither side has addressed the matter directly, the law is clear that, by virtue of another section of the Federal law – 15 U.S.C. § 1677 – the Federal law preempts State law to the extent that the latter “allows a greater amount of a debtor’s earnings to be reached…”

Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Shill, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1054 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “) While Shill also points out that we cannot interpret our statutes in a manner that would be less favorable to a debtor than under the federal garnishment law ( 15 U.S.C. § 1677 (1)), he admits he has not found a case from any jurisdiction establishing federal preemption on the…”

Indus. Welfare Comm'n v. Superior Court, 613 P.2d 579 (Cal. 1980). “Numerous legislative enactments and judicial authorities make it clear that the states possess broad authority, under their police power, to prescribe minimum standards of employer conduct found necessary to protect the welfare of employees, even when health or safety…”

Hodgson v. Hamilton Mun. Court, 349 F. Supp. 1125 (S.D. Ohio 1972). · cites it 3× “Beyond these two areas, Congress expressly stated in § 307 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1677 ) that Title III: “. . .”

In Re Stewart, 32 B.R. 132 (Bankr. D. Utah 1983). · cites it 2× “See - 15 U.S.C. § 1677 . But the garnishment provisions of the Utah Uniform Consumer Credit Code are both more and less generous to debtors than the federal law.”

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. AT & G. CO., INC., 239 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Beyond these two areas, Congress expressly stated in § 307 ( 15 USC § 1677 ) that Title III: "`* * * does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person from complying with, the laws of any State "`(1) prohibiting garnishments or providing for more limited garnishments than…”

Killian v. Lawson, 387 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1980). “…also be noted that the federal statute does not prohibit additional protection from garnishment under state law. 15 U.S.C. § 1677 .”

Long Island Trust Co. v. United States Postal Serv., 647 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1981). “15 U.S.C. § 1677 . Thus, so far from placing principal emphasis on creditor protection, the Act only restricted, and in no way expanded, the rights of creditors.”

In Re Sanders, 69 B.R. 569 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1987). “19, 34-35 (1985) (footnotes omitted); see also, 15 U.S.C. § 1677 (state garnishment law rather than the federal garnishment statute applies if state garnishment law provides for more limited garnishments than the federal statute).”

Forker v. Irish (In Re Irish), 311 B.R. 63 (8th Cir. BAP 2004). “15 U.S.C. § 1677 . 3 . Irish and her husband did not claim any tax refund amounts as exempt.”

Koethe v. Johnson, 328 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 1982). “15 U.S.C. § 1677 . The principal provision of the Act is 15 U.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.