Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 CONN 359 - Solomon v. Aberman

Solomon v. Aberman’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

316
cited by 316 later decisions
3
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

26 district · 286 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 316 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Dunham v. Dunham (1987), Weiss v. Wiederlight (1988)

26 district · 286 state decisions

20401985199020002010decided

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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Wainwright v. Witt · Texas v. Brown · Blake v. Levy · Johnson v. Flammia

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

  1. “The burden is on plaintiff to plead and prove at least some improper motive or improper means.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the existence of a contractual or beneficial relationship and that the defendant, `knowing of that relationship, intentionally sought to interfere with it; and, as a result, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered actual loss.'”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he pendency of a prior suit of the same character, between the same parties, brought to obtain the same end or object, is, at common law, good cause for abatement. It is so, because there cannot be any reason or necessity for bringing the second, and, therefore, it must be oppressive and vexatious. This is a rule of justice and equity, generally applicable, and always, where the two suits are virtually alike, and in the same jurisdiction. Hatch v. Spofford , 22 Conn. 485 , 494 [1853]; Cahill v. Cahill , 76 Conn. 542 , 547 , 57 A. 284 [1904]. Dettenborn v. Hartford-National Bank Trust Co. , 121 Conn. 388 , 392 , 185 A. 82 (1936); see Zachs v. Public Utilities Commission , 171 Conn. 387 , 391-92 , 370 A.2d 984 (1976). The rule forbidding the second action is not, however, one of unbending rigor, nor of universal application, nor a principle of absolute law . . . . Hatch v. Spofford , [supra]. Farley-Harvey Co. v. Madden , 105 Conn. 679 , 682 , 136 A. 586 (1927); see Brochin v. Connecticut Importing Co. , 137 Conn. 350 , 352 , 77 A.2d 336 (1950); Dettenborn v. Hartford-National Bank Trust Co. , supra, 393 [;] Henry F. Raab Connecticut, Inc. v. J. W. Fisher Co. , supra, 112-13.”
    12 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.