Stanton v. Stanton
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McCONNELL, P. J.
An issue of first impression in California is raised in this dissolution action: Does the federal preemption doctrine prohibit the inclusion of military allowances for housing and food in a party’s gross income for purposes of calculating child and spousal support, since under federal law such allowances are not taxable or subject to wage garnishment? We conclude the doctrine is inapplicable, as under United States Supreme Court authority family law support matters are within the province of state law unless “ ‘Congress has “positively required by direct enactment” that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Rose v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. McConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
- In Re Marriage of SkelleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Hautala v. HautalaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Obrecht v. ObrechtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Freitas v. FreitasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Bodo v. BodoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Lindquist v. Arthur L. Herman, LLC CA2/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Marriage of Peyman CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2021
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.