Legal Opinion

Metz v. Metz

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 2004No. 41448PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

In this proper person appeal, the primary issue is whether a Nevada district court has authority to order a noncustodial parent to pay child support from his or her supplemental security income and/or social security disability benefits. We conclude that under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), Congress has expressly exempted supplemental security income from child support payments. Thus, a district court is prohibited from utilizing a noncustodial parent’s supplemental security income in setting a child support obligation. Congress, however, has waived the exemption with respect to social security…

3Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. SchermerhornSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. United States v. YazellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Wetmore v. MarkoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1904

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by21 opinions

  1. Sykes v. Bank of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
  2. Rivero v. RiveroNevada Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Public Employees' Benefits Program v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police DepartmentNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Potter v. PotterNevada Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Clark County District Attorney v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2007

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API