Cabrera v. Cabrera’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Kinsella v. Kinsella (1997), 71 Conn. App. 771 - Berglass v. Berglass (2002)
2 district · 50 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 Rivera v. United States · Pisel v. Stamford Hospital · State v. White · Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Dowling · Sweet v. Sweet
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“courts may rely on their general knowledge of what has occurred at the proceedings before them to supply evidence in support of an award of attorney's fees. Guaranty Bank Trust Co. v. Dowling, 4 Conn. App. 376 , 386 , 494 A.2d 1216 , cert. denied, 197 Conn. 808 , 499 A.2d 58 (1985); O G Industries v. Mizzoni, 23 Conn. App. 19 , 578 A.2d 672 (1990).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It was the defendant [husband] himself who sought the introduction of the family relations report. It was that report that made an issue of the plaintiffs mental health and that entitled the plaintiff to introduce the testimony of her own expert, Zucker, to rebut it. The defendant’s claim that the testimony of Joondeph [the treating mental health provider] should have been admitted because her [the spouse’s] mental health was automatically at issue under §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82 is also unavailing. While it is true that the plaintiffs health, like that of the defendant, is automatically in issue under §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82, those sections do not either specifically or implicitly override the provisions of § 52-146c [the privilege statute]. Rather, as is the general rule in construing statutes that appear to be in conflict, we read them, whenever possible, so as to give effect to both. In this case, this is easily done. Although information about an individual’s mental health may indeed be relevant to the award of alimony and the distribution of property, as it surely is to the award of custody, the sources of information are limited by the provisions of § 52-146c- The provisions of §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82 do not, however, render the plaintiffs privilege unavailable in her communications with Joondeph.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . . because the defendant had not requested joint custody, granting joint custody would fly in the face of Emerick, unless the court could conclude that joint custody was in the best interests of the children.”
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.