Wassell v. Hamblin’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2006 · most notably Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. (1997), Preston v. Keith (1991)
47 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 Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. · Kellems v. Brown · Davis v. Edwards · Fuessenich v. DiNardo · Wallingford v. GLEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES, INC.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plaintiffs claim . . . that the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to amend his answer to include the special defenses, claiming that the amendments were untimely and clearly prejudicial. The grant or denial of a motion to amend the pleadings is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Tedesco v. Julius C. Pagano, Inc., 182 Conn. 339 , 341 , 438 A.2d 95 (1980); Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. 158 , 161 , 459 A.2d 525 (1983). In the interest of justice courts are liberal in permitting amendments; unless there is a sound reason, refusal to allow an amendment is an abuse of discretion. Tedesco v. Julius C. Pagano, Inc., supra, [ 182 Conn. 339 ]. The trial court is in the best position to assess the burden which an amendment would impose on the opposing party in light of the facts of the particular case. The essential tests are whether the ruling of the court will work an injustice to either the plaintiff or the defendant and whether the granting of the motion will unduly delay a trial. . . . Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., supra, [190 Conn.] 161-62, quoting Tedesco v. Julius C. Pagano, Inc., supra, [182 Conn.] 341-42. At the time the amendments were granted, although the plaintiffs did argue untimeliness, they did not request any continuance nor did they make any colorable claim of prejudice. Under the circumstances, we cannot find an abuse of discretion in granting the amendments.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is established law that it is error for a court to submit to the jury an issue which is wholly unsupported by the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[f]ailure to wear a seat safety belt shall not be considered as contributory negligence nor shall such failure be admissible evidence in any civil action.”
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.