Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 Conn. App. 506 - Stuart v. Snyder

125 Conn. App. 506 - Stuart v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

4 district · 12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 2830 Whitney Avenue Corp. v. Heritage Canal Development Associates, Inc. · Boone v. William W. Backus Hospital · State v. Miranda · 98 Conn. App. 125 - Vanliner Insurance v. Fay · 112 Conn. App. 262 - Byrne v. Burke

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

  1. “In order to support a finding of a continuing course of conduct that may toll the statute of limitations there must be evidence of the breach of a duty that remained in existence after commission of the original wrong related thereto. That duty must not have terminated prior to commencement of the period allowed for bringing an action for such wrong. Where [the Connecticut Supreme Court has] upheld a finding that a duty continued to exist after the cessation of the act or omission relied upon, there has been evidence of either a special relationship between the parties giving rise to such a continuing duty or some later wrongful conduct of a defendant related to the prior act. Thus, there must be a determination that a duty existed and then a subsequent determination of whether that duty is continuing.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Additionally], the [defendant's] actions must have been directed to the very point of obtaining the delay [in filing the action] of which [the defendant] afterward [seeks] to take advantage by pleading the statute.... To meet this burden, it [is] not sufficient for the [plaintiff] to prove merely that it was more likely than not that the [defendant] had concealed the cause of action. Instead, the [plaintiff must] prove fraudulent concealment by the more exacting standard of clear, precise and unequivocal evidence ....”
    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.