eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)

What are the key differences in the legal arguments presented by Sveen v. Melin in comparison to McMahon v. Nolan

The legal arguments presented in Sveen v. Melin differ from those in McMahon v. Nolan in several key ways. Firstly, Sveen v. Melin involves a challenge to a state law that retroactively applies to life insurance beneficiary designations, whereas McMahon v. Nolan involved a challenge to a state law that retroactively changed the rules for determining the validity of a will.

Secondly, the parties in Sveen v. Melin are in a different relationship than those in McMahon v. Nolan. In Sveen v. Melin, the parties were formerly married and the deceased had designated his ex-spouse as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy. In contrast, McMahon v. Nolan involved a dispute between siblings over their mother's estate.

Thirdly, the legal issue in Sveen v. Melin centers on the Contract Clause of the US Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws that impair contractual obligations. In contrast, McMahon v. Nolan involved a challenge to a state law under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lastly, the Supreme Court's decision in Sveen v. Melin was based on a 8-1 vote, with Justice Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. In contrast, McMahon v. Nolan was decided by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion.

In summary, while both cases involve disputes over the distribution of assets after a person's death, the legal issues, parties involved, and constitutional provisions at play are different in each case.

eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)