Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 Conn. 564 - Clegg v. Bishop

Clegg v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
6
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 87 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker (1979), Smith v. Smith (1962)

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 87 state decisions

3001927193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Dorus v. Lyon · Sage v. Hawley · Gibson v. Simmons · Waterman v. A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Co. · Hewitt v. Wheeler School & Library

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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “may have two or more places of residence within a State, or in two or more States, and each may be a `usual place of abode.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Shawmut Bank Connecticut v. Cook, No. Cv-94-73915 S (Feb. 23, 1995) · 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8885 - Bailey v. Mansour, No. 398360 (Oct. 16, 1991)
  2. “The most prominent purpose of the law in prescribing the modes of serving civil process was to ensure actual notice to defendants.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Baricko v. Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co., No. Cv 97 0395642 (Dec. 9, 1997) · 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 145 - Clucas v. McGrath
  3. “Dorus v. Lyon , 92 Conn. 55 , 57 , 101 A. 490 . Service of process will be valid if made in either of the usual places of abode. It will reach him in one as well as the other. Dorus v. Lyon , supra, is decisive that one may have a home and residence outside this State and yet have a usual place of abode in this State for service of process and sufficient to permit the statute of limitations to run. Grant v. Dalliber , supra; Dunn's Appeal , 35 Conn. 82 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5055 - Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, No. Fa00-0339869s (Apr. 9, 2001)

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.