29 U.S.C. § 1506
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016).
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting, 370 P.3d 729 (Idaho 2016). “Accordingly, by issuing the QDRO the magistrate court has: (1) completely ignored the obvious intent of the contracting parties; and (2) impermissibly modified the terms of a contract by changing the methods by which it can be enforced without grounds for doing so.”
Sam L. Majors Jewelers v. ABX, Inc., 117 F.3d 922 (5th Cir. 1997). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1506 (1976). Therefore, the court concluded that prior to deregulation, federal common law controlled any action against air carriers for lost goods.”
ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych (D. Mass. 2024). “2004) in which the First Circuit considered the proper interpretation of 29 U.S.C. § 1506 (d)(1), a federal statute prohibiting the alienation or assignment of pension benefits.”
Linda Kesting v. James Kesting (Idaho 2016). “Accordingly, by issuing the QDRO the magistrate court has: (1) completely ignored the obvious intent of the contracting parties; and (2) impermissibly modified the terms of a contract by changing the methods by which it can be enforced without grounds for doing so.”
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.