Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Rossgreen2 sentences1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. Murraygreen1 sentence1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of O'Neillgreen2 sentences1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Hellwiggreen2 sentences1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1 |
Clements v. Clementsgreen2 sentences1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1 |
Gentile v. Gentilegreen1 sentence1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Smithgreen2 sentences1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1 |
Felix v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1990In undertaking this functional analysis, we are mindful of this court’s opinion in Felix v. United States, 508 A.2d 101, 105 (D.C. 1986), where we held that “active enrollment in a specific rehabilitation program is not a stated prerequisite to invocation of [the IAD] Act’s protections.” That case held that where a detainer has been unambiguously lodged, see id. at 102 , a prisoner need not show that the detainer has had any “detrimental effects" on his rehabilitation program for the IAD to apply. 1990In undertaking this functional analysis, we are mindful of this court’s opinion in Felix v. United States, 508 A.2d 101, 105 (D.C. 1986), where we held that “active enrollment in a specific rehabilitation program is not a stated prerequisite to invocation of [the IAD] Act’s protections.” That case held that where a detainer has been unambiguously lodged, see id. at 102 , a prisoner need not show that the detainer has had any “detrimental effects" on his rehabilitation program for the IAD to apply. | 1 | 1 |
Bean v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1983D.C.Code § 24-701, Art. 111(a) (1981); see Mauro, supra, 436 U.S. at 346 , 98 S.Ct. at 1840 ; Bean v. United States, 409 A.2d 1064, 1066 (D.C.1979); ante at 319 n. 3. 1 Thus, a functional analysis is necessary to determine whether the warrant here was lodged as a detainer, i.e., was intended as, or accorded the status of, a detainer. 1983III(a) (1981); see Mauro, supra, 436 U.S. at 346 , 98 S.Ct. at 1840 ; Bean v. United States, 409 A.2d 1064, 1066 (D.C.1979); ante at 319 n. 3. [1] Thus, a functional analysis is necessary to determine whether the warrant here was lodged as a detainer, i.e., was intended as, or accorded the status of, a detainer. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Maurogreen2 sentences1983D.C.Code § 24-701, Art. 111(a) (1981); see Mauro, supra, 436 U.S. at 346 , 98 S.Ct. at 1840 ; Bean v. United States, 409 A.2d 1064, 1066 (D.C.1979); ante at 319 n. 3. 1 Thus, a functional analysis is necessary to determine whether the warrant here was lodged as a detainer, i.e., was intended as, or accorded the status of, a detainer. 1983D.C.Code § 24-701, Art. 111(a) (1981); see Mauro, supra, 436 U.S. at 346 , 98 S.Ct. at 1840 ; Bean v. United States, 409 A.2d 1064, 1066 (D.C.1979); ante at 319 n. 3. 1 Thus, a functional analysis is necessary to determine whether the warrant here was lodged as a detainer, i.e., was intended as, or accorded the status of, a detainer. | 1 | 1 |
Walter Ashe v. Luther D. Robinsongreen2 sentences1976Cf. Ashe v. Robinson, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 222 , 450 F.2d 681, 683 (1971). 1976Cf. Ashe v. Robinson, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 222 , 450 F.2d 681, 683 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sherman v. United States
green
1 sentence2024A functional analysis of who is an “agent” of the government furthers the objective of the entrapment defense, which is “designed to overcome” the “evil” that occurs when the government “plays on the weaknesses of an innocent party and beguiles him into committing crimes which he otherwise would not have attempted.” Sherman, 356 U.S. at 376 . “[T]he ‘purpose of the defense is to deter misconduct in enforcing the law.’” 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 9.8(a) (quoting Model Penal Code § 2.13). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2023In a subsequent in-depth consideration where the issue was presented for plenary review by the court sitting en banc, Bado, aware of Thomas, eschewed the mere regulatory classification inquiry and engaged in a functional analysis grounded on the fact that the “law has enmeshed criminal convictions and the penalty of deportation,” id. at 1252 (quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 365-66 ), deportation is an “integral part” of the proceeding, id. at 1254 (quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 364 ), and “attaches to a criminal conviction,” id. at 1258, such that it should be considered in an assessment of the se 2023In a subsequent in-depth consideration where the issue was presented for plenary review by the court sitting en banc, Bado, aware of Thomas, eschewed the mere regulatory classification inquiry and engaged in a functional analysis grounded on the fact that the “law has enmeshed criminal convictions and the penalty of deportation,” id. at 1252 (quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 365-66 ), deportation is an “integral part” of the proceeding, id. at 1254 (quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 364 ), and “attaches to a criminal conviction,” id. at 1258, such that it should be considered in an assessment of the se | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2006Moreover, “any inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the ease.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . 2006Moreover, “any inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the ease.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sharp v. Sharp
green
1 sentence1998At the same time, recognizing that proof that a spouse purposely dissipated marital property to avoid a fair distribution will often be circumstantial, most courts considering the issue have employed a functional test: [dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538-39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (quoting Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176 , 600 A.2d 891, 898 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Westfall v. Erwin
red
2 sentences1990In Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 , 108 S.Ct. 580 , 98 L.Ed.2d 619 (1988), the Court observed: this Court has long favored a "functional” inquiry — immunity attaches to particular official functions, not to particular offices. 1990In Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 , 108 S.Ct. 580 , 98 L.Ed.2d 619 (1988), the Court observed: this Court has long favored a "functional” inquiry — immunity attaches to particular official functions, not to particular offices. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.