Casey v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 86 Conn. App. 665 - Chyung v. Chi Han Chyung (2004), Simms v. Simms (2007)
64 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 Krafick v. Krafick · Valante v. Valante · Koizim v. Koizim · Smith v. Smith · Sunbury v. Sunbury
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review for financial orders in a dissolution action is clear. The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning its financial orders, and [j]udicial review of a trial court's exercise of [this] broad discretion ... is limited to the questions of whether the ... court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did.... In making those determinations, we allow every reasonable presumption ... in favor of the correctness of [the trial court's] action.... That standard of review reflects the sound policy that the trial court has the unique opportunity to view the parties and their testimony, and is therefore in the best position to assess all of the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action, including such factors as the demeanor and the attitude of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[C]ourts have no inherent power to transfer property from one spouse to another; instead, that power must rest upon an enabling statute.... The court's authority to transfer property appurtenant to a dissolution proceeding rests on ... § 46b-81. That section provides in relevant part: At the time of entering a decree ... dissolving a marriage ... the Superior Court may assign to either [spouse] all or any part of the estate of the other.... Accordingly, the court's authority to divide the personal property of the parties, pursuant to § 46b-81, must be exercised, if at all, at the time that it renders judgment dissolving the marriage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when parties submit an issue to the court for resolution, they are entitled to have that issue considered, absent jurisdictional defects or other substantive impairments.”
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.