Sturman v. Socha’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 14 district · 316 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 360 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc. (1996), Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas (1992)
12 federal appellate · 14 district · 316 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 William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Collins v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Lar-Rob Bus Corp. v. Town of Fairfield · Thomas v. Thomas · Lettieri v. American Savings Bank
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 360 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]ecessary parties . . . have been described as `[p]ersons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine the entire controversy, and do complete justice, by adjusting all the rights involved in it. . . . [B]ut if their interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, so that the court can proceed to a decree, and do complete and final justice, without affecting other persons not before the court, the latter are not indispensable parties.'”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Parties have been characterized as `indispensable' when they `not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.' (citations omitted). Necessary parties, however, have been described as `persons having an interest in the controversy, who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine the entire controversy . . . (b)ut if their interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, so that the court can proceed to a decree, and do complete and final justice, without affecting other persons not before the court, the latter are not indispensable parties.'" (citations omitted), Sturman Skocha, 191 Conn. 1”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . . the intent of the parties is to be ascertained by a fair and reasonable construction of the written words and that the language used must be accorded its common, natural and ordinary meaning and usage where it can be sensibly applied to the subject matter of the contract.”
8 later decisions 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.