Krafick v. Krafick’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 269 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 276 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably State v. Webb (1996), Bornemann v. Bornemann (1998)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 269 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (§ 4 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on 15 Cal. 3d 838 - In Re Marriage of Brown · Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. · State v. Indrisano · 13 Conn. App. 300 - O'Neill v. O'Neill · Gallo v. Gallo
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 276 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In assessing the value of . . . property . . . the trier arrives at his own conclusions by weighing the opinions of the appraisers, the claims of the parties, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value, and then employs the most appropriate method of determining valuation. The trial court has the right to accept so much of the testimony of the experts and the recognized appraisal methods which they employed as he finds applicable; his determination is reviewable only if he misapplies, overlooks, or gives a wrong or improper effect to any test or consideration which it was his duty to regard."”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] trial court may assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other. . . . In fixing the nature and value of the property , if any, to be assigned, the court, after hearing the witnesses, if any, of each party . . . shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the . . . dissolution of the marriage . . . the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income. The court shall also consider the contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their respective estates.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises and incorporeal hereditaments.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.