Metz v. Metz
Nevada Supreme Court
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
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1625 v. SchermerhornSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. YazellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Wetmore v. MarkoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by21 opinions
- Sykes v. Bank of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Rivero v. RiveroNevada Supreme Court · 2009
- Public Employees' Benefits Program v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police DepartmentNevada Supreme Court · 2008
- Potter v. PotterNevada Supreme Court · 2005
- Clark County District Attorney v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2007
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.