Winick v. Winick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`It is the settled rule of this jurisdiction, if indeed it may not be safely called an established principle of general jurisprudence, that no court will proceed to the adjudication of a matter involving conflicting rights and interests, until all persons directly concerned in the event have been actually or constructively notified of the pendency of the proceedings, and given reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.' Ackerman v. Union New Haven Trust Co., 91 Conn. 500 , 508 , 100 A. 22 (1917); City Trust Co. v. Buckley, 151 Conn. 598 , 601 , 201 A.2d 196 (1964); Roltuch v. Rainaud, 137 Conn. 298 , 300 , 77 A.2d 94 (1950). It is fundamental in proper judicial administration that no matter shall be decided unless the parties have fair notice that it will be presented CT Page 5483 in sufficient time to prepare themselves upon the issue. Osterlund v. State, 129 Conn. 591 , 596 , 30 A.2d 393 (1943). Winick v. Winick, 153 Conn. 294 , 298-99 , 216 A.2d 185 (1965).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10919 - Murphy v. Murphy, No. Fa87-023069 (Dec. 24, 1991) · 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5480 - Ewart v. Meyer-Morlock, No. Cv91-0121173 (Jun. 19, 1992)

2. “a serious breach of a fundamental requirement of due process of law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3323 - Briglia v. Briglia, No. 0116035 (Mar. 2, 1994) · 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5480 - Ewart v. Meyer-Morlock, No. Cv91-0121173 (Jun. 19, 1992)