I'm sorry, but I'm not sure "case law" is applicable. This is a matter of negotiation and good will at this point. Case law only arises when there is a dispute under litigation. And litigants chose case law to support their goals -- but in something where a court has wide discretion to weigh the "equities," it is not really helpful.
The basic argument in a community property
state like California is that any assets accrued while married (including fringe benefits for retiree spouses) are 50-50 property (pre-marital property and inheritances are not, generally). So the key would be arguing that this community, marital property would be lost.
There is case law that could be applied in all directions in an argument like this -- its not something like school rules that state anyone arriving after the bell will be marked tardy. So the legal principal -- community property -- is the key thing to argue. In marriage, once essentially has a legal claim on spousal benefits. In a community property state, there's a half interest in those assets acquired. Remember, mediation is a negotiation, not the application of a fixed formula. Think of something the other party wants to trade for it that may not matter as much to you. If you can get to yes, it is a lot better than litigating it -- where everyone pays a lot, and goes through tremendous pain and anxiety.
BotXXXXX XXXXXne -- there is no off the shelf "case law" because each case has different equities. The only constant is the half-interest in an asset. I suspect no one wants to only get half a life insurance policy, so creatively figure what to swap if that life insurance is that important. Everyone has a botXXXXX XXXXXne number -- so ultimately, with community property, after all the marital is added up, it should be appraised and then divvied up. End of exercise. what form that division takes, that's where the negotiation comes in in mediation.