Bishop v. Bordonaro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 state decisions

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

1. “In probate appeals, a Superior Court `may admit any evidence that was received by the Probate Court or could have been received by CT Page 9-J it . . . [but] may not receive evidence that the Probate Court could not have received because it came into existence subsequent to the Probate Court hearing.' (Citations omitted.) Bishop v. Bordonaro, 20 Conn. App. 58 , 64 , 563 A.2d 1049 (1989).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lenczyk v. Georgetti, No. Cv 96-0472840s (Jan. 29, 1997) · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11490 - Hall v. Schoenwetter, No. 30 75 14 (Oct. 3, 1995)

2. “While one who bids upon the property of an estate offered for sale has no interest in the property itself, he does have an interest in the proceedings employed by the court to approve the sale.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cammorota v. Appeal From Probate, No. Cv 02 0388486s (Mar. 6, 2002) · Koslosky v. First National Bank, No. Cv99-0154324s (Apr. 13, 2000)

3. “[t]he statute of frauds [will] not prohibit the sale of real estate pursuant to an oral contract. The effect of the statute is to create a defense to an action on an oral contract.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7544 - Zauner v. Brewer, No. 049135 (Aug. 11, 1992) · 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3891 - Kelly v. Ryan, No. Cv91-0115381 (May 17, 1991)