Nash v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. “[the] rules [of practice] would be meaningless if they could be circumvented by filing [unauthenticated documents] in support of or in opposition to summary judgment.... Therefore, before a document may be considered by the court [in connection with] a motion for summary judgment, there must be a preliminary showing of [the document's] genuineness, i.e., that the proffered item of evidence is what its proponent claims it to be.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Conn. App. 405 - Anderson v. Dike

2. “Contract language is unambiguous when it has a definite and precise meaning about which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion.... [T]he intent of the parties is to be ascertained by a fair and reasonable construction of the written words and ... the language used must be accorded its common, natural, and ordinary meaning and usage where it can be sensibly applied to the subject matter of the contract.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Conn. App. 637 - Tomey Realty Co. v. Bozzuto's, Inc.

3. “Documents in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment may be authenticated in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, a certified copy of a document or the addition of an affidavit by a person with personal knowledge that the offered evidence is a true and accurate representation of what its proponent claims it to be.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Conn. App. 405 - Anderson v. Dike