Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 221 CONN 698 - Watson v. Watson

Watson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
2
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

2 district · 125 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Smith v. Smith (1999), Greco v. Greco (2005)

2 district · 125 state decisions

870199220002010decided

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 Gaudio v. Gaudio · Weiman v. Weiman · Valante v. Valante · Sunbury v. Sunbury · Tyers v. Coma

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

  1. “either (1) that the conveyance was made without substantial consideration and rendered the transferor unable to meet to his obligations; or (2) that the conveyance was made with fraudulent intent in which the grantee participated.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. National Loan Inv. v. Lan Assoc., No. X03-Cv-99-0495407s (Jun. 28, 2002) · National Loan Inv. v. World Prop., No. X03-Cv-98-0491738s (Jun. 27, 2002)
  2. “Such an outcome prevents a party to a dissolution action from inequitably benefitting [benefiting] from his fraudulent transfer of real property by reducing the assets that would otherwise be included in the marital estate and available for assignment pursuant to General Statutes 46b-81 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Sfugaras v. Sfugaras, No. 532615 (Mar. 6, 1996) · 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1229 - Rubin v. Labow, No. Cv79 17 88 86 S (Feb. 17, 1994)
  3. “[t]he fact that the defendant, subsequent to his marriage to the plaintiff, received (bonds and certificates of deposit) from his (mother) in his name only does not operate to exclude this property from the marital assets”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Masi v. Masi, No. 0118171 (Apr. 17, 1996) · Krafick v. Krafick, No. 30 68 20 (Jul. 25, 1997)

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.