Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo
Citations
- 439 U.S. 572
- 99 S. Ct. 802
- 59 L. Ed. 2d 1
- 1979 U.S. LEXIS 56
- 1 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1421
About this case
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that railroad pensions were not subject to division upon divorce because they were not community property .[1] [2] Congress abrogated this decision by passing the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act in 1983.[2]
Background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisquierdo_v._Hisquierdo&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 provided retirement benefits for railroad employees. The benefits were not contractual and could be altered by Congress at any time. Benefits for an employee's spouse terminated upon an absolute divorce under 45 U.S.C. § 231d(c)(3). Except for satisfying child support or alimony obligations, 45 U.S.C. § 231m stipulated that "no annuity [under the act] shall be assignable or be subject to any tax or to garnishment, attachment, or other legal process under any circumstances whatsoever, nor shall the payment thereof be anticipated...."[1]
Jess H. Hisquierdo, a California resident whose years of service as a railroad employee entitled him to benefits under the Act if and when he attained age 60, petitioned to divorce Angela Hisquierdo, also a resident of California. Because California is a community property state, the trial court divided the parties' community property, but it held that the spouse had no interest in the employee's expectation of receiving railroad retirement benefits. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that, because the benefits would flow in part from employee's employment during marriage, they were community property. The court rejected the employee's contention that § 231m barred the spouse's claim, reasoning that the provision was intended to apply to creditors only.[1]
Opinion of the court
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisquierdo_v._Hisquierdo&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the court")
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding missing information . (October 2025)
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on January 22, 1979.[1]
Later developments
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisquierdo_v._Hisquierdo&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Later developments")
In response to this case and _McCarty v. McCarty _ (1981), when the court held the same for military pensions, Congress passed the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act in 1983. Because of that act, these pensions are divisible as community property, so both of these decisions are abrogated.[2]
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisquierdo_v._Hisquierdo&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: References")
- 1 2 3 4 Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979).
- 1 2 3 Krause, Harry D.; Meyer, David D. (2003). Family Law in a Nutshell (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West. p. 291.
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisquierdo_v._Hisquierdo&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: External links")
- Text of Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court . As a work of the U.S. federal government , the text is in the **public domain **.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisquierdo_v._Hisquierdo&oldid=1351979168 "
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that in allocating a federal entitlement, Congress may preempt state family law by direct enactment
- holding that federal benefits statutes preempt state domestic relations law to the extent of conflict
- holding that federal law preempted state law’s definition of community property subject to division with respect to federal pension benefits
- holding that Railroad Retirement Act benefits are not community property subject to division upon divorce
- holding that the Railroad Retirement Act preempted application of California community property law in state divorce proceedings
- holding that the anti-alienation provision of 45 U.S.C. § 231m (1988) prohibits an individual from receiving equivalent property to her husband’s Railroad Retirement Benefits as part of a divorce
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Blackmun, Stewaet, Blackmün, Burger, Brennan, White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, Stewart, Rehnquist
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
602 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Supreme Court· 1982-03-02· cited 2,744×
- United States Railroad Retirement Board v. FritzSupreme Court· 1981-02-23· cited 1,058×
- McCarty v. McCartySupreme Court· 1981-06-26· cited 1,052×
- United States v. RodgersSupreme Court· 1983-05-31· cited 801×
- Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. BreinerSupreme Court· 2001-04-02· cited 737×
- Hennessy v. DuryeaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1998-01-14· cited 698×
- Mansell v. MansellSupreme Court· 1989-05-30· cited 626×
- Boggs v. BoggsSupreme Court· 1997-06-02· cited 491×
- Eichelberger v. EichelbergerTexas Supreme Court· 1979-05-23· cited 400×
- Atkins v. ParkerSupreme Court· 1985-06-04· cited 377×
- Rose v. RoseSupreme Court· 1987-05-18· cited 321×
- Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2018-06-21· cited 278×
- Cameron v. CameronTexas Supreme Court· 1982-10-13· cited 259×
- Ridgway v. RidgwaySupreme Court· 1981-11-10· cited 255×
- Paul A. Wright, on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. Chase RivelandNinth Circuit· 2000-07-11· cited 215×
- In Re the Marriage of ZappantiColorado Court of Appeals· 2003-06-19· cited 199×
- In re the Marriage of RockwellCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2007-08-27· cited 180×
- Hillman v. MarettaSupreme Court· 2013-06-03· cited 172×
- In re Marriage of WilliamsSupreme Court of Kansas· 2018-05-18· cited 172×
- Neville v. NevilleOhio Supreme Court· 2003-07-23· cited 156×
Cites
42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court· 1960-06-20· cited 1,508×
- Perez. v. CampbellSupreme Court· 1971-06-01· cited 1,006×
- In Re BurrusSupreme Court· 1890-05-19· cited 717×
- Richardson v. BelcherSupreme Court· 1971-11-22· cited 630×
- Poe v. SeabornSupreme Court· 1930-11-24· cited 567×
- New York State Department of Social Services v. DublinoSupreme Court· 1973-06-21· cited 558×
- Free v. BlandSupreme Court· 1962-05-21· cited 516×
- In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court· 1976-01-16· cited 507×
- United States v. YazellSupreme Court· 1966-01-18· cited 427×
- Philpott v. Essex County Welfare BoardSupreme Court· 1973-01-10· cited 411×
- De Sylva v. BallentineSupreme Court· 1956-06-11· cited 393×
- Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court· 1966-04-25· cited 308×
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. WareSupreme Court· 1973-12-04· cited 282×
- Herb v. PitcairnSupreme Court· 1945-02-05· cited 282×
- Wissner v. WissnerSupreme Court· 1950-02-06· cited 281×
- Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton RailroadSupreme Court· 1935-05-06· cited 250×
- Hopkins v. BaconSupreme Court· 1930-11-24· cited 205×
- In Re Marriage of FithianCalifornia Supreme Court· 1974-01-03· cited 173×
- Ohio Ex Rel. Popovici v. AglerSupreme Court· 1930-01-27· cited 166×
- Bender v. PfaffSupreme Court· 1930-11-24· cited 119×
Other cases named Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo
4 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.