Roberts v. Caton’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
14 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Skakel (2006), Miller v. Kirshner (1993)
14 district · 88 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 Morris v. Hartford Courant Co. · Dubay v. Irish · Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone, Co. · Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Ecker v. Town of West Hartford
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is presumed to be applicable to all actions, whether pending or not, in the absence of any expressed intention to the contrary.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he defendant's assertion that he is now unexpectedly exposed to liability was an express purpose of the statute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““(1) An application, directed to the superior court to which the action is made returnable, for the prejudgment remedy requested; “(2) An affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff or any competent affiant setting forth a statement of facts sufficient to show that there is probable cause that judgment will be rendered in the matter in favor of the plaintiff; “(3) A form of order that a hearing be held before the court or a judge thereof to determine whether or not the prejudgment remedy requested should be granted and that notice of such hearing be given to the defendant; “(4) A form of summons directed to a proper officer commanding him to serve upon the defendant at least four days prior to the date of the hearing, pursuant to the law pertaining to the manner of service of civil process, the application, a true and attested copy of the writ, summons and complaint, such affidavit and the order and notice of hearing . . . .””
3 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.