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.
6 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moran v. Morangreen2 sentences2009Turner, Virginia’s Equitable Distribution Law: Active Appreciation and the Source of Funds Rule, 47 Wash & Lee L.Rev. 879, 899-905 (1990) (“property is ‘acquired’ under the source of funds rule whenever real economic value is created”) (citing Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 , 929 *296 (1982); Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C.App. 372 , 325 S.E.2d 260 (1985)). 2 29 Va.App. at 414 , 512 S.E.2d at 836 . 2009Turner, Virginia’s Equitable Distribution Law: Active Appreciation and the Source of Funds Rule, 47 Wash & Lee L.Rev. 879, 899-905 (1990) (“property is ‘acquired’ under the source of funds rule whenever real economic value is created”) (citing Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 , 929 *296 (1982); Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C.App. 372 , 325 S.E.2d 260 (1985)). 2 29 Va.App. at 414 , 512 S.E.2d at 836 . | 2 | 3 |
Smoot v. Smootyellow2 sentences2009The Virginia Supreme Court addressed the source of funds doctrine in Smoot v. Smoot, 233 Va. 435 , 357 S.E.2d 728 (1987), and rejected it. 2009The Virginia Supreme Court addressed the source of funds doctrine in Smoot v. Smoot, 233 Va. 435 , 357 S.E.2d 728 (1987), and rejected it. | 1 | 3 |
Harper v. Harpergreen2 sentences2009The Court concluded that because (at that time) Code § 20-107.3 only contemplated two kinds of property, marital or separate, the statute did not recognize hybrid property. 3 The Court distinguished a Maryland case, Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 (1982), which applied the source of funds rule, because Maryland’s statute recognized hybrid property. 2009The Court concluded that because (at that time) Code § 20-107.3 only contemplated two kinds of property, marital or separate, the statute did not recognize hybrid property. 3 The Court distinguished a Maryland case, Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 (1982), which applied the source of funds rule, because Maryland’s statute recognized hybrid property. | 1 | 2 |
Marion v. Mariongreen2 sentences2009See also Marion v. Marion, 11 Va.App. 659 , 401 S.E.2d 432 (1991). 2009See also Marion v. Marion, 11 Va.App. 659 , 401 S.E.2d 432 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Srinivasan v. Srinivasangreen2 sentences2009See Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va.App. 728, 732 , 396 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990) (“It is true that the source of funds is a factor that the court should consider in making an equitable distribution award. 2009See Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, 10 Va.App. 728, 732 , 396 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990) (“It is true that the source of funds is a factor that the court should consider in making an equitable distribution award. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harper v. Harpergreen2 sentences2009The Court concluded that because (at that time) Code § 20-107.3 only contemplated two kinds of property, marital or separate, the statute did not recognize hybrid property. 3 The Court distinguished a Maryland case, Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 (1982), which applied the source of funds rule, because Maryland’s statute recognized hybrid property. 2009The Court concluded that because (at that time) Code § 20-107.3 only contemplated two kinds of property, marital or separate, the statute did not recognize hybrid property. 3 The Court distinguished a Maryland case, Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 (1982), which applied the source of funds rule, because Maryland’s statute recognized hybrid property. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wade v. Wade
green
2 sentences2009Turner, Virginia’s Equitable Distribution Law: Active Appreciation and the Source of Funds Rule, 47 Wash & Lee L.Rev. 879, 899-905 (1990) (“property is ‘acquired’ under the source of funds rule whenever real economic value is created”) (citing Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 , 929 *296 (1982); Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C.App. 372 , 325 S.E.2d 260 (1985)). 2 29 Va.App. at 414 , 512 S.E.2d at 836 . 2009Turner, Virginia’s Equitable Distribution Law: Active Appreciation and the Source of Funds Rule, 47 Wash & Lee L.Rev. 879, 899-905 (1990) (“property is ‘acquired’ under the source of funds rule whenever real economic value is created”) (citing Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 , 929 *296 (1982); Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C.App. 372 , 325 S.E.2d 260 (1985)). 2 29 Va.App. at 414 , 512 S.E.2d at 836 . | 2 | 1999–2009 |
Lawing v. Lawing
green
1 sentence1988Cf. Lawing v. Lowing, 81 N.C. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.