green
Positive treatment
2.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Hepburn v. Hepburn
Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, it cannot be said that the plaintiff effectively waived her right to equitably share in the pension benefits the defendant received from his employer, to the extent that the benefits from that pension constituted marital property (compare Kammerer v Kammerer, 278 AD2d at 282 -283 with Graef v Retirement Income Plan for Employees of Albemarle Corp., 166 F3d 332 [1998]; see Silber v Silber, 99 NY2d 395, 404 [2003], cert denied 540 US 817 [2003]; March v March, 233 AD2d 371, 372 [1996]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re the Estate of Sbarra
Respondent also contends that, even if the separation agreement were enforceable and even though the Court of Appeals has now held that a beneficiary can waive his or her rights under a retirement plan established pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( 29 USC § 1001 et seq.; see Silber v Silber, 99 NY2d 395 [2003], Cert denied 540 US 817 [2003]), the separation agreement here does not explicitly identify the benefits being waived.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lacorazza v. Lacorazza
Under these circumstances, it was error to conclude that the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the defendant’s pension as it was valued on the date of his retirement (see Ernst v Ernst, 8 AD3d 331 [2004]; see also Silber v Silber, 99 NY2d 395 [2003], cert denied 540 US 817 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burkhart
v.
Quilici
v.
Quilici
02-1707.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 2003.
Published
BURKHART
v.
QUILICI.
No. 02-1707.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 6, 2003.
1
Appeal from the Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist.
2
Certiorari denied.