Mitchell v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control (1990), In re Samantha C. (2004)
43 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 United States v. Euge · Finkenstein v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act · Monroe v. Monroe · State v. Clemente · Dukes v. Durante
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every petition for a decree finally dissolving and terminating the marriage, after a decree of legal separation, shall state the number of the case in which the separation was granted, the date of the decree of legal separation and whether the parties have resumed marital relations since the entry of the decree, and it shall be accompanied by an application for an order of notice to the adverse party.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the parties intended to abrogate the separation agreement by resuming their marital relationship. " (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 1). Neither party has filed an action for dissolution pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-65 . The defendant asserts that the decree of legal separation has never been vacated, set aside, or amended, that CT Page 3529 neither party filed a declaration of resumption of marital relations, and therefore, the decree of legal separation still stands. The parties are found to have resumed marital relations, the court should examine the agreement to determine whether it remains fair and equitable. "The effect of a separation agreement [orders] . . . is governed by General Statutes 46b-66 , which requires that the court inquire into the financial resources and actual needs of the spouses . . . the fact that the agreement was presumably found fair and equitable at the time of the legal separation does not excuse the failure of the court to make such a determination in light of the situation of the parties at the time of dissolution and to afford an opportunity for a hearing on the issues involved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person seeking either a legal separation or a dissolution of marriage must file a petition pursuant to 46b-40 . If the court renders a decree of legal separation the parties may then pursue one of two avenues, the summary route under 46b-65 or the trial route under 46b-40 . The summary route contemplates mutual agreement of the parties. . . . One of the purposes of [Practice Book § 25-36 ] is to enable the court to ascertain whether the case is an appropriate candidate for summary disposition.”
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.