Grinold v. Grinold’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently May 2003 · most notably Connolly v. Connolly (1983), Sanchione v. Sanchione (1977)
3 federal appellate · 124 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 Pasquariello v. Pasquariello · Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldmann · Hutensky v. Town of Avon · Viglione v. Viglione · LaBella v. LaBella
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Connecticut unequivocally follows the widely established rule that no modification of alimony or support is to be granted unless there has been a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party. General Statutes 46-54; Viglione v. Viglione, 171 Conn. 213 , 215 , 368 A.2d 202 (1976); see Clark, Domestic Relations 14.9.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“and that he is no longer able to pay the $1,000.00 per month alimony nor many of his expenses. The motion is brought pursuant to the provisions of 46b-86 (a) of the General Statutes. Since it involves the issue of alimony, the court must consider the factors of 46b-82 of the General Statutes. In order to grant the defendant's motion, the court must find a substantial change of circumstances not contemplated by the parties at the time of the original decree. The appellate court has recently stated as follows:”
2 later decisions 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.