Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

association

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 296 U.S. 344 - Morrissey v. Commissioner · 1935Most cited · 1,031 citing opinions

Association' implies associates

It implies the entering into a joint enterprise, and, as the applicable regulation imports, an enterprise for the transaction of business. This is not the characteristic of an ordinary trust—whether created by will, deed, or declaration—by which particular property is conveyed to a trustee or is to be held by the settlor, on specified trusts, for the benefit of named or described persons. Such beneficiaries do not ordinarily, and as mere cestuis que trust, plan a common effort or enter into a combination for the conduct of a business enterprise.

How the Supreme Court has restated “association”

193519401950196019701971 most cited: 296 U.S. 344 - Morrissey v. Commissioner (1935)
first statedrestated (same sense)departed

Each Supreme Court definition of “association,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “association”

1930194019601980200020202030408

Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “association” — 1,331 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 3 definitions, chronological · 1935–1971

  1. The word 'association' implies associates. It implies the entering into a joint enterprise, and, as the applicable (departmental) regulation imports, an enterprise for the transaction of business. This is not the characteristic of an ordinary trust—whether created by will, deed, or declaration—by which particular property is conveyed to a trustee or is to be held by the settlor, on specified trusts, for the benefit of named or described persons. Such beneficiaries do not ordinarily, and as mere cestuis que trust, plan a common effort or center into a combination for the conduct of a business enterprise.

  2. 1971·404 U.S. 4 - Arciniega v. Freeman[p2]· cited 191×

    the parole condition restricting association was not intended to apply to incidental contacts between ex-convicts in the course of work on a legitimate job for a common employer. Nor is such occupational association, standing alone, satisfactory evidence of nonbusiness association violative of the parole restriction.

    parole condition