Madow v. Muzio’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently April 2001 · most notably Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care (1986), Lieberman v. State Board of Labor Relations (1990)
2 district · 98 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 Richardson v. Perales · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · Lawrence v. Kozlowski
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“if the decision of the agency is reasonably supported by the evidence in the record, it must be sustained. C H Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 167 Conn. 304 , 306 , 355 A.2d 247 (1964); Hart Twin Volvox Corporation v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 165 Conn. 42 , 49 , 327 A.2d 588 (1973); Derma v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 165 Conn. 15 , 17 , 327 A.2d 569 (1973); Paul Bailey's Inc. v. Kozlowski, 167 Conn. 493 , 496-97 , (1975).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;”
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.