← 228 CONN 766 - Suffield Bank v. Berman

Suffield Bank v. Berman’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

cited by 46 later decisions

states following

August 2019

most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably City of Waterbury v. Town of Washington (2002), U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers (2019)

46 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

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1811 (Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 1821

Relies on California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Messenger v. Anderson · ITT Continental Baking Co. v. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. · Goldstein v. United States · Breen v. Phelps

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

“[w]here a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided, in the absence of some new or overriding circumstance.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Saccardi v. Stamford Board of Education, No. Cv 95 0143732 S (Apr. 5, 1995) · Saccardi v. Stamford Board of Education, No. Cv95-0143732s (Feb. 21, 1996)
“New pleadings intended to raise again a question of law which has been already presented on the record and determined adversely to the pleader are not to be favored.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4492 - Sector Management v. Taurus Adv. Group, No. Cv96 0154033 S (Apr. 15, 1998) · 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 5014 - Chertkova v. Connecticut Specialty, No. Cv 98-0486347s (Apr. 14, 2000)
“The law of the case . . . expresses the practice of judges generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided and is not a limitation on their power.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 5014 - Chertkova v. Connecticut Specialty, No. Cv 98-0486347s (Apr. 14, 2000) · 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12186 - Animal Rights v. P Z Com., Glastonbury, No. Cv98 0579968s (Sep. 7, 1999)

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.