201 Mich. App. 563 - Roth v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 to provide better protection for beneficiaries of private employee pension plans.” Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, [ 318 Md. 28 ] 566 A.2d 767 (Md.1989). ERISA contained a preemption provision that established pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern, (citations omitted). An anti-alienation provision included in the Act precluded plan participants from assigning or alienating their benefits under pension plans subject to the act. 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 401 (a)(13). The combination of anti-alienation and preemption provisions eventually raised a question as to the validity of state domestic relations orders requiring payment of pension benefits to ex-spouses, ineligible plan beneficiaries. Rohrbeck, supra. Apparently, the question had not been anticipated by Congress. Id. It was eventually answered by enactment of the [Retirement Equity Act (REA) of 1984], Legislative history of the REA provides: The bill clarifies the spendthrift provisions of the Internal Revenue Code by providing new rules for the treatment of certain domestic relations orders. The bill creates an exception to the ERISA preemption provision with respect to these orders. The bill provides procedures to be followed by a plan administrator and an alternate payee (a child, spouse, or former spouse of a participant) with respect to domestic relations orders.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pruitt v. Pruitt