134 Conn. App. 252 - Olson v. Mohammadu’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Borkowski v. Borkowski · Sanchione v. Sanchione · Greco v. Greco · Stuart v. Stuart · 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he trial court should have taken into account the defendant's motivation for relocating in deciding the threshold issue of whether there was a substantial change of circumstances warranting modification. In other words ... the trial court should have determined whether the defendant's alleged inability to pay was a result of his own extravagance, neglect, misconduct or other unacceptable reason .... Because the trial court made no finding on the culpability of the defendant's conduct, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly applied the law when it denied the defendant's motion for modification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Thus, [w]hen presented with a motion for modification, a court must first determine whether there has been a substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both of the parties. ... Second, if the court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it may properly consider the motion and, on the basis of the § 46b-82 criteria, make an order for modification .... The court has the authority to issue a modification only if it conforms the order to the distinct and definite changes in the circumstances of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While the appeal was pending at the Appellate Court, the defendant filed a motion for articulation of the trial court's decision. ... The trial court granted, in part, the motion for articulation and stated that [t]he court did not consider the relocation to be a substantial change in circumstance[s] because the move was a voluntary action on the part of the defendant.”
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.