Legal Opinion · Dissent

First National Bank & Trust Co. of Ada v. Arles

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 30, 1991No. 67477Published

1DissentDoolin, Justice

I cannot agree with the majority that a social security recipient is entitled to a discharge of his legal obligation to make monthly payments to a judgment creditor. In my opinion, the authorities cited by Arles and relied upon by the majority, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) and Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, supra, have absolutely nothing to do with the matter in question. There is no evidence in the record which indicates, or even suggests that any legal process has been used to reach Arles’ social security benefits. The Court decides today an issue which is not substantiated in the undisputed…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mercury Investment Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
  2. Dickason v. DickasonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  3. Robert Tidwell v. Richard Schweiker, Etc., and Ivan Pavkovic, Etc., Robert Schreckenberg v. Richard S. Schweiker, Etc., and Ivan Pavkovic, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  4. Secretary of Health & Human Services v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Moore v. ColauttiDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979

9 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