164 Conn. App. 686 - Brown v. Otake’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] claim of intentional misrepresentation requires the same elements as negligent misrepresentation except that the plaintiff also must prove that the defendant made the misrepresentation to induce the other party to act upon it ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 176 Conn. App. 296 - Kenneson v. Eggert · 177 Conn. App. 42 - Pellet v. Keller Williams Realty Corp.

2. “Practice Book § [17-49] provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.... In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.... The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law ... and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. "It is not enough ... for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue. Mere assertions of fact ... are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court .... [T]ypically [d]emonstrating a genuine issue requires a showing of evidentiary facts or substantial evidence outside the pleadings from which material facts alleged in the pleadings can be warrantably inferred.... Our review of the decision to grant a motion for summary judgment is plenary.... We therefore must decide whether the court's conclusions were legally and logically correct and find support in the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 176 Conn. App. 296 - Kenneson v. Eggert

3. “[t]he application of the law of the case doctrine involves a question of law, over which our review is plenary. ... The law of the case doctrine expresses the practice of judges generally to refuse to reopen what [already] has been decided .... New pleadings intended to raise again a question of law which has been already presented on the record and determined adversely to the pleader are not to be favored .... [When] a matter has previously been ruled [on] interlocutorily, the court ... may treat that [prior] decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided, in the absence of some new or overriding circumstance .... A judge should hesitate to change his own rulings in a case and should be even more reluctant to overrule those of another judge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Conn. App. 646 - Town of Glastonbury v. Sakon