Cunningham v. Cunningham

How courts have described this case

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

• having determined formula for division of assets received by the defendant pursuant to nonqualified plan, court had discretion to retain jurisdiction to effectuate its judgment
• having deter- mined formula for division of assets received by the defendant pursuant to nonqualified plan, court had dis- cretion to retain jurisdiction to effectuate its judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Kent v. DiPaola
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2017-12-05· cited 13×
• Cunningham v. Cunningham
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2021-05-04· cited 10×
• Krahel v. Czoch
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2018-11-06· cited 7×
• Ingles v. Ingles
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2022-12-06· cited 3×
• Cimino v. Cimino
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2015-02-03

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Majauskas v. Majauskas
  New York Court of Appeals· 1984-04-03· cited 522×
• Krafick v. Krafick
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-08-08· cited 162×
• Bender v. Bender
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-12-18· cited 93×
• Ippolito v. Ippolito
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1992-08-25· cited 58×
• Thompson v. Thompson
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-02-10· cited 41×
• Rivnak v. Rivnak
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2007-01-23· cited 20×
• Rozsa v. Rozsa
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2009-09-08· cited 16×
• McMellon v. McMellon
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2009-08-11· cited 11×
• Ranfone v. Ranfone
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2007-08-14· cited 10×
• Kaczynski v. Kaczynski
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2010-09-28· cited 9×