McKenna v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc. (2005), Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves v. Tuck-it-away, Bridgeport, Inc. (1992)
2 district · 25 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 Three S. Development Co. v. Santore · Kakalik v. Bernardo · Martin v. Kavanewsky · Loda v. H. K. Sargeant & Associates, Inc. · Blakeslee v. Board of Water Commissioners
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ontract modification is a question of fact; Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, 193 Conn. 174 , 177-78 , 474 A.2d 795 (1984); and may be effectuated expressly by mutual promises; Id. 178 ; or may be implied in fact from the parties' conduct. Cf. Rahmati v. Mehri, 188 Conn. 583 , 587 , 452 A.2d 638 (1982) (manifestation of mutual assent may be found by the conduct of the parties).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It has also long been accepted that an anticipatory breach discharges any remaining duties of the nonbreaching party, and once there has been a repudiation that party is no longer required to hold himself ready, willing and able to perform. Martin v. Kavanewsky, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“despite the presence of such a clause in a contract, a modification by subsequent parol agreement will be given effect.”
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.