Bisker v. Bisker’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
145 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 128 Ohio App. 3d 18 - Badovick v. Badovick (1998), 113 Ohio App. 3d 24 - Neel v. Neel (1996)
145 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 Blakemore v. Blakemore · Cherry v. Cherry · Holcomb v. Holcomb · Berish v. Berish · Gross v. Gross
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is syllabus law in Ohio that a vested pension plan accumulated during marriage is a marital asset that must be considered in arriving at an equitable division of property. * * * “The record does not indicate that the trial court, at any juncture of the current proceedings, ever reviewed the retirement benefits of the parties as mandated by R.C. 3105.18. The trial court’s orders are therefore incorrect as a matter of law. During the first divorce proceeding, the trial court did not conduct an-independent review but, rather, took the parties’ oral agreement at face value. This error cannot be corrected by a subsequent remarriage. This issue remained unsettled at the time of the second divorce and again was not addressed. Instead of rectifying an earlier omission, the trial court compounded it and the court of appeals affirmed. “The trial court erred as a matter of law and, therefore, this matter must be remanded for a review of appellee’s pension benefits and their impact on the ultimate division of property.””
4 later decisions 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.