172 Conn. App. 393 - Robinson v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[emphasis added] ); Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-5c(b)(6)(A) (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 Conn. App. 812 - Becue v. Becue · 189 Conn. App. 164 - Cyganovich v. Cyganovich

2. “Our review of the court's interpretation of ... § 46b-215a-1 (11) ... of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies is plenary.... Section 46b-215a-1(11) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies defines gross income as the average weekly earned and unearned income from all sources before deductions .... That section includes a nonexhaustive list of twenty-two inclusions. In that list of inclusions is: alimony being paid by an individual who is not a party to the support determination.... Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-1(11)(A)(xix). The specific wording of this inclusion makes clear that only alimony received from a nonparty to the support determination is included in gross income.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 431 - Lesueur v. Lesueur

3. “An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's orders in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented.... In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action.... Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding motions for modification.... [T]o the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether those findings were clearly erroneous.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 189 Conn. App. 164 - Cyganovich v. Cyganovich