Southern New England Contracting Co. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Scribner v. O'Brien, Inc. (1975), Griffin v. Nationwide Moving & Storage Co. (1982)
2 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
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 Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldmann · Bertozzi v. McCarthy · Brauer v. Freccia · Pawlinski v. Allstate Insurance
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“best approximation to certainty is all that is required.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““This court recently had occasion to examine the issue of the awarding of interest in contract actions. ‘ “ ‘The determination of whether or not interest is to be recognized as a proper element of damage, is one to be made in view of the demands of justice rather than through the application of any arbitrary rule.’ Bernhard v. Rochester German Ins. Co., 79 Conn. 388, 398 , 65 A. 134 [1906]. The real question in each case is whether the detention of the money is or is not wrongful under the circumstances.” Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldmann, 161 Conn. 265, 275 , 287 A.2d 374 [1971]; Wells Laundry & Linen Supply Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, Inc., 138 Conn. 458, 463 , 85 A.2d 907 [1952]; Campbell v. Rockefeller, 134 Conn. 585, 591 , 59 A.2d 524 [1948]. Basically, the question is whether the interests of justice require the allowance of interest as damages for the loss of use of money. Goldman v. Coppola, 149 Conn. 317, 328 , 179 A.2d 817 [1962]; Wells Laundry & Linen Supply Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, Inc., supra. Whether a sum in certain circumstances has been liquidated may, of course, be a useful although not necessarily controlling criterion. Capitol City Lumber Co. v. Sudarsky, 95 Conn. 336, 340-41 , 111 A. 349 [1920]; 22 Am. Jur. 2d 256, 263, Damages §§ 179, 185; cf. Loomis v. Gillett, 75 Conn. 298, 300-301 , 53 A. 581 [1902]. The allowance of interest as an element of damages is, thus, primarily an equitable determination and a matter lying within the discretion of the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“These conclusions are to be tested by the finding, as corrected.... They must stand unless they are legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless they involve the application of some erroneous rule of law material to the case.... The wisdom of these policies is pointed out with particular force by a case such as this where the factual framework is extremely complex and where, as the trial court pointed out, there were sharp conflicts in the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'Connor v. Larocque
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.