Caffe v. Caffe’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Bornemann v. Bornemann (1998), Smith v. Smith (1999)
42 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
Relies on Weiman v. Weiman · Carpenter v. Carpenter · State v. Jenkins · State v. Crumpton · 25 Conn. App. 693 - Savage v. Savage
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“General Statutes § 46b-81 , 46b-82 and 46b-84 set forth the criteria that a trial court must consider when resolving property and alimony disputes in a dissolution of marriage action. The court must consider all of these criteria. . . . It need not, however, make explicit reference to the statutory criteria that it considered in making its decision or make express findings as to each statutory factor. A ritualistic rendition of each and every statutory element would serve no useful purpose. . . . Further, the trial court is vested with wide discretion and broad powers in resolving such matters. . . . Therefore, the trial court is free to weigh the relevant statutory criteria without having to detail what importance it has assigned to the various statutory factors. Collucci v. Collucci , 33 Conn. App. 536 , 539 , 636 A.2d 1364 (1994); see also Rummel v. Rummel , 33 Conn. App. 214 , 222 , 635 A.2d 295 (1993); Savage v. Savage , 25 Conn. App. 693 , 701 , 596 A.2d 23 (1991).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellate courts look at the record, and determine whether the [trial] court either incorrectly applied the law or could not reasonably conclude as it did.”
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.