Regarding CASE, there were/are a lot of tools mis-labeled as CASE tools.
In order for a CASE tool to deliver, there has to be a sound method behind it. You can tell a poor excuse for one because the marketing hype uses the term "methodology" instead of "method".
The number of people who truly understand software development methods, their history and their benefits and limitations is probably in the hundreds, worldwide. (Hint - they do not include Rumbaugh, Jacobsen and Booch.)
The goal of real CASE and the methods behind it, was to develop zero defect software. This was equivalent to attaining the highest level of SEI CMM, as imperfect as that 'standard' is/was.
What 'killed' CASE use is the money behind UML and Rational and... the tonnes of money to be made from consulting on defective software products. And... a lot of people, who had no idea what methods are, ran around messing up projects left and right saying they were using CASE and 'methodologies'.
Call it the perfect automobile syndrome - the product rarely breaks down and seldom needs replacement. What manufacturer would dare to produce a product that would not require replacement or parts?
So, during the 'CASE' golden era there were a lot of ignorant people touting 'CASE' and now there are some people writing articles about 'CASE'.
Neither type has a clue.