173 Conn. App. 755 - Sousa v. Sousa’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Fraud consists in deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right, and which accomplishes the end designed .... The elements of a fraud action are: (1) a false representation was made as a statement of fact; (2) the statement was untrue and known to be so by its maker; (3) the statement was made with the intent of inducing reliance thereon; and (4) the other party relied on the statement to his detriment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 Conn. App. 186 - Lavy v. Lavy · 188 Conn. App. 1 - City of Stamford v. Rahman

2. “[a]n attorney is the client's agent and his knowledge is imputed to the client”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. · 188 Conn. App. 228 - MacCalla v. American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc.

3. “For claims of fraud brought in a civil action, our Supreme Court has established the criteria necessary for a party to overcome the statutory time limitation governing a motion to open and set aside judgment.... To have a judgment set aside on the basis of fraud which occurred during the course of the trial upon a subject on which both parties presented evidence is especially difficult.... The question presented by a charge of fraud is whether a judgment that is fair on its face should be examined in its underpinnings concerning the very matters it purports to resolve. Such relief will only be granted if the unsuccessful party is not barred by any of the following restrictions: (1) There must have been no laches or unreasonable delay by the injured party after the fraud was discovered ... (2) There must have been diligence in the original action, that is, diligence in trying to discover and expose the fraud 11 ... (3) There must be clear proof of the perjury or fraud ... [and] (4) There must be a substantial likelihood that the result of the new trial will be different.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 188 Conn. App. 1 - City of Stamford v. Rahman