Darak v. Darak’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 district · 192 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 198 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Turner v. Turner (1991), Borkowski v. Borkowski (1994)
6 district · 192 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. Frady · Barde v. Board of Trustees · Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718 v. Boston Chapter, NAACP · Daily v. New Britain Machine Co. · Conaway v. Prestia
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 198 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a rule of presumed legislative intent that statutes affecting substantive rights shall apply prospectively only.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a statutory amendment that construes and clarifies a prior statute [and therefore] operates as the legislature's declaration of the meaning of the original act.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘The “obligations” referred to in the statute are those of substantive law’; Nagle v. Wood, 178 Conn. 180, 186 , 423 A.2d 875 (1979); and ‘[l]egislation which limits or increases statutory liability has generally been held to be substantive in nature.’ Little v. Ives, 158 Conn. 452, 457 , 262 A.2d 174 (1969). ‘[W]e have uniformly interpreted § 55-3 as a rule of presumed legislative intent that statutes affecting substantive rights shall apply prospectively only.’ Darak v. Darak, 210 Conn. 462, 467 , 556 A.2d 145 (1989); Westport v. State, 204 Conn. 212, 219 , 527 A.2d 1177 (1987). ‘The legislature only rebuts this presumption when it “clearly and unequivocally” expresses its intent that the legislation shall apply retrospectively.’ Darak v. Darak, supra, 210 Conn, at 468, 556 A.2d 145 ; see also State v. Lizotte, 200 Conn. 734, 741 , 517 A.2d 610 (1986).” Gormley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 216 Conn. 523, 529 , 582 A.2d 764 (1990).”
2 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.