Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 CONN 175 - Goodson v. State

Goodson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
1
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

10 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Ayala v. Smith (1996), Sweeney v. Sweeney (2004)

10 district · 53 state decisions

3201995200020102020decided

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 Castro v. Viera · Stroiney v. Crescent Lake Tax District · Goodson v. State · Galland v. Bronson · Guilford Yacht Club Ass'n v. Northeast Dredging, Inc.

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

  1. “[o]rder pendente lite. At any time before an award is rendered pursuant to an arbitration [proceeding] under this chapter, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides . . . may make forthwith such order or decree, issue such process and direct such proceedings as may be necessary to protect the rights of the parties pending the rendering of the award and to secure the satisfaction thereof when rendered and confirmed.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An application for an order pendente lite pursuant to § 52-422 is a special statutory proceeding. "The statute confers a definite jurisdiction upon a judge and it defines the conditions under which such relief may be given. In such a situation jurisdiction is only acquired if the essential conditions prescribed by statute are met. If they are not met, the lack of jurisdiction is over the subject-matter and not over the parties." By its express terms, § 52-422 allows the trial court to issue an order only "upon application of any party to the arbitration. . . ." Thus, a pending arbitration is an essential condition that must exist before § 52-422 may be invoked. /B. (Citations omitted.)”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time.”
    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.