181 Conn. App. 822 - Thomasi v. Thomasi’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (§ 4 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania · State v. Hendrickson · Krafick v. Krafick · Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance · Sanchione v. Sanchione
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A word is ambiguous when it is capable of being interpreted by reasonably well informed persons in either of two or more senses .... Ambiguous can be defined as unclear or uncertain, or that which is susceptible of more than one interpretation, or understood in more ways than one.”
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.