Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 Conn. 120 - Moore v. Moore

Moore v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes (1992), Mahoney v. Lensink (1990)

51 state decisions

120197719801990200020102020decided

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 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · State v. Tomanelli · Karp v. Urban Redevelopment Commission · Guerriero v. Galasso · Nichols v. Nichols

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

  1. “Notice to the parties is not always required when a court takes judicial notice. Our own cases have attempted to draw a line between matters susceptible of explanation or contradiction, of which notice should not be taken without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard ... and matters of established fact, the accuracy of which cannot be questioned, such as court files, which may be judicially noticed without affording a hearing.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[A]uthorities have drawn a distinction between 'legislative facts,' those which help determine the content of law and policy, and 'adjudicative facts,' facts concerning the parties and events of a particular case. The former may be judicially noticed without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, but the latter, at least if central to the case, may not.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “There are two types of facts considered suitable for the taking of judicial notice: those which are 'common knowledge' and those which are 'capable of accurate and ready demonstration.' McCormick, Evidence (2d Ed.) § 330, p. 763. Courts must have some discretion in determining what facts fit into these categories. It may be appropriate to save time by judicially noticing borderline facts, so long as the parties are given an opportunity to be heard.”
    1 later decision 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.