Baldwin v. Baldwin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• gain realized by plaintiff from exercise of stock options was not income under ambiguous separation agreement term, where plaintiff testified that stock options were not to be included as income and parties had listed stock options on financial affidavits as assets and not income
• agreement ambiguous when term “income” undefined

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Isham v. Isham
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-06-23· cited 39×
• Greenburg v. Greenburg
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1992-02-11· cited 26×
• Birkhold v. Birkhold
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-28· cited 13×
• Sablosky v. Sablosky
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2000-12-12· cited 11×
• Ayres v. Ayres
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2019-10-01

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-01-27· cited 261×
• Lopinto v. Haines
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-12-08· cited 139×
• Sturtevant v. Sturtevant
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1959-07-28· cited 69×
• Bolmer v. Kocet
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1986-04-01· cited 56×
• Marcus v. Marcus
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-05-16· cited 55×
• Federal Aviation Administration v. Administrator
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-06-25· cited 53×
• Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1985-10-01· cited 45×
• Beach v. Beach
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1954-07-23· cited 43×
• Marsico v. Marsico
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-03-19· cited 12×
• Pulaski v. Ledwith
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1985-12-17· cited 11×
• Coles v. Coles
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1989-02-22· cited 6×