Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 Conn. App. 320 - Selby v. Pelletier

1 Conn. App. 320 - Selby v. Pelletier’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
November 2019
most recently cited

6 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably 53 Conn. App. 252 - Appleton v. Board of Education (1999), 101 Conn. App. 83 - American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert (2007)

6 district · 38 state decisions

2801983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of Manchester · Appliances, Inc. v. Yost · Damora v. Christ-Janer · Grinold v. Grinold · Harry A. Finman & Son, Inc. v. Connecticut Truck & Trailer Service Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he general rule is that the agent may not be charged with having interfered with a contract of the agent's principal.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[lit is essential to a cause of action for unlawful interference with business that it appear that, except for the tortious interference of the defendant, there was a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a contract or made a profit.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.