107 Conn. App. 488 - Rubenstein v. Rubenstein’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably 124 Conn. App. 672 - Zahringer v. Zahringer (2010), 129 Conn. App. 526 - Wiegand v. Wiegand (2011)
27 state decisions
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 Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. · Miller v. Kirshner · Prial v. Prial
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n appellate court will not disturb a trial court's orders in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented.... The court may order either party to pay the fees for [a] guardian ad litem pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-62, and how such expenses will be paid is within the court's discretion.... [W]e may not alter an award of [guardian ad litem] fees unless the trial court has clearly abused its discretion, for the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the circumstances of each case.... Because the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the circumstances of each case, we will not substitute our opinion concerning counsel fees or alter an award of [guardian ad litem] fees unless the trial court has clearly abused its discretion.... An abuse of discretion in granting [guardian ad litem] fees will be found only if [an appellate court] determines that the trial court could not reasonably have concluded as it did.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) The likelihood, if made known to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) The amount involved and the results obtained ; (5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our Supreme Court consistently has noted that [trial] courts have a general knowledge of what would be reasonable compensation for services which are fairly stated and described.... Because of this general knowledge, [t]he court [is] in a position to evaluate the complexity of the issues presented and the skill with which counsel had dealt with these issues.”
1 later decision 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.