175 Conn. App. 223 - Northrup v. Witkowski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “that to demonstrate the existence of a ministerial duty on the part of a municipality and its agents, a plaintiff ordinarily must point to some statute, city charter provision, ordinance, regulation, rule, policy, or other directive that, by its clear language, compels a municipal employee to act in a prescribed manner, without the exercise of judgment or discretion. See Violano v. Fernandez , 280 Conn. 310 , 323, 907 A.2d 1188 (2006) ; Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 506-507, 559 A.2d 1131 (1989) ; DiMiceli v. Cheshire [ 162 Conn. App. 216 , 224-25, 131 A.3d 771 (2016) ]; Grignano v. Milford , 106 Conn. App. 648 , 659-60, 943 A.2d 507 (2008).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Northrup v. Witkowski · Ventura v. Town of E. Haven

2. “On October 30, 2015, the defendants filed [a] motion for summary judgment .... The defendants submitted * a supporting memorandum of law, attached to which were partial transcripts from the depositions of Helen ... and the individual defendants, as well as an affidavit by Stewart. The defendants argued that the negligence counts, including those alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, were barred by governmental immunity because they involved acts or omissions that required the exercise of judgment or discretion, and no other recognized exception to governmental immunity applied. The defendants further argued that the recklessness counts brought against the individual defendants also failed as a matter of law because, on the basis of the allegations and evidence presented, no reasonable fact finder could determine that the individual defendants had engaged in demonstrably reckless conduct. "The plaintiffs filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2015, arguing with respect to the negligence counts that there remained genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants were exercising ministerial or discretionary duties and, if discretionary, whether the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity applied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Northrup v. Witkowski

3. “Except as otherwise provided in this article, the streets commission shall be responsible for the care and management of all streets, avenues, highways, alleys and bridges, and the opening, [grading, improving], repairing and cleaning of the same; of the construction, protection, repair, furnishing, cleaning, heating, lighting and general care of all public streets and appurtenances, except such as are by the express terms of the Charter under the control of some other officer or department; of the construction, repair, cleaning and general care of all drains, culverts, sluiceways and catch basins, and the collection and disposing of ashes, garbage and refuse. The streets commission shall make all suitable rules and regulations in regard to the department and the conduct of its business.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Northrup v. Witkowski