Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 CONN 13 - Chotkowski v. State

Chotkowski v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Chotkowski v. State (1997), Serrano v. Aetna Insurance (1995)

42 state decisions

2701989199020002010decided

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 Cahill v. Board of Education · Concerned Citizens of Sterling v. Town of Sterling · Tough v. Ives · Sanger v. City of Bridgeport · State ex rel. Higgins v. Civil Service Commission

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

  1. “[c]onstitutional issues are not considered unless absolutely necessary to the decision of a case . . . or unless sufficient public interest warrants such a review.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No enactment creating a preference can withstand constitutional attack if the sole objective of the General Assembly is to grant personal gain or advantage to an individual.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under circumstances like those in the present case, where a special act has allowed a person named therein to bring a suit based upon a statutory cause of action that would otherwise be barred for failure to comply with a time limit specified in the statute, we have ordinarily been unable to discern any public purpose sufficient to sustain the enactment. . . . [The plaintiff] does not even claim . . . that the state caused the delay in presenting his claim to the claims commissioner, `a situation which would afford strong legislative grounds for legislative interference.' Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183 , 189 , 198 A. 746 (1938).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.