211 Md. App. 323 - Dapp v. Dapp’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 45 U.S.C. § 231 (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231A (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231B (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231M (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974) · 49 U.S.C. § 24301
Relies on Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · United States v. Eggen · 97 Md. App. 711 - Pleasant v. Pleasant · 105 Md. App. 678 - Dexter v. Dexter · 342 Ill. App. 3d 262 - In Re Marriage of Hulstrom
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Those cases do not provide authority to sustain the trial court’s action here. Unlike the agreement that is the subject of this case, the agreements enforced in Allen and Dexter were valid when they were made; the anticipated military retirement benefits were divisible and assignable at the time of contract. The Tier I benefits at issue here, however, were not. Because [the husband] was barred by the anti-assignment clause from anticipating or assigning his future Tier I benefits, he has no preexisting obligation to make payments based upon the amount he now receives, and there is no valid agreement for the circuit court to enforce. The fact that the order does not directly affect his benefits is irrelevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.