Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 Conn. 377 - Samasko v. Davis

Samasko v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
December 2002
most recently cited

2 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably Thompson v. Orcutt (2001), Andrzejczyk v. Advo System, Inc. (1959)

2 district · 23 state decisions

801949195019601970198019902000decided

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 National Transportation Co., Inc. v. Toquet · Lyman v. Lyman · Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox · Ward v. Ward · Munson v. MacDonald, Highway Commissioner

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

  1. “[[w]here a plaintiff's claim grows out of or depends upon or is inseparably connected with his own prior fraud, a court of equity will, in general, deny him any relief, and will leave him to whatever remedies and defenses at law he may have.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Though an obligation be indirectly connected with an illegal transaction, it will not thereby be barred from enforcement if the plaintiff does not require the aid of the illegal transaction to make out his (sic) case",”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “applies [only] to the CT Page 15575 particular transaction under consideration, for the court will not go outside the case for the purpose of examining the conduct of the complainant in other matters or questioning his general character for fair dealing. The wrong must . . . be in regard to the matter in litigation. . . . Though an obligation be indirectly connected with an illegal transaction, it will not thereby be barred from enforcement, if the plaintiff does not require the aid of the illegal transaction to make out his case.”
    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.