Elsasser v. Elsasser’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2025
11 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 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 45 U.S.C. § 231 (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974)
Relies on Broadhead v. Broadhead · Arnold v. State · Spomer v. Spomer · Matter of Estate of Kimball · Eddy v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A.-Lander
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“W.R.C.P. 60(a) is intended to correct clerical, not judicial, errors. A clerical error is a mistake or omission of a mechanical nature apparent on the face of the record that prevents the judgment as entered from accurately reflecting the judgment that was rendered. In addition, W.R.C.P. 60(a) is designed to clarify, as well as to correct, and is properly invoked to dispel either patent or latent ambiguities in a judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ozment v. Ozment · Moore v. State“... A clerical error is a mistake or omission of a mechanical nature apparent on the face of the record that prevents the judgment as entered from accurately reflecting the judgment that was rendered. (Citation omitted.) In addition, [an order nune pro tunc] is designed to clarify, as well as to correct, and is properly invoked to dispel either patent or latent ambiguities in a judgment. (Citation omitted.) [[Image here]] [We [have previously] noted that in past domestic relations decisions, this Court has recognized that "retirement funds, whether vested, nonvested, or not matured, are marital property divisible upon divorce." (Citation omitted.) We reiterated the elementary principal that "[the trial court does not have power to modify a decree * * * if it is in the nature of a property settlement." (Citation omitted.) However, we did not question that a divorcee decree could be clarified by the addition of a qualified domestic relations order. Instead, we found that the trial court erred by failing to amend the order in compliance with its original intent. That is not the case here. The amended order directly facilitates the intent expressed in the stipulation and in the original decree. - (Citation omitted.) Husband's erroneous construction of the divorcee provisions clearly underscores the appropriateness of the trial court's decision to clarify its original ruling. The parties' property settlement clearly stated that Wife was to receive half of the Tier Two benefits ear”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ozment v. Ozment“[the trial court does not have power to modify a decree * * * if it is in the nature of a property settlement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ozment v. Ozment
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.