Bartholomew v. Schweizer’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Blanchette v. Barrett (1994), Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp. (1999)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 109 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 Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co. · Mather v. Griffin Hospital · Buckman v. People Express, Inc. · Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Recognizing that executive, legislative and judicial powers frequently overlap, we have consistently held that the doctrine of the separation of powers cannot be applied rigidly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In construing a statute . . . [a court] will search for an effective and constitutional construction that reasonably accords with the legislature's underlying intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Recognizing that executive, legislative and judicial powers frequently overlap, [the Connecticut Supreme Court has] consistently held that the doctrine of the separation of powers cannot be applied rigidly. CT Page 706 . . .In the context of challenges to statutes whose constitutional infirmity is claimed to flow from impermissible intrusion upon the judicial power, [the Connecticut Supreme Court has] refused to find constitutional impropriety in a statute simply because it affects the judicial function. . . .A statute violates the constitutional mandate for a separate judicial magistracy only if it represents an effort by the legislature to exercise a power which lies exclusively under the control of the courts. . . or if it establishes a significant interference with the orderly conduct of the Superior Court's judicial functions.”
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.