Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 CONN 581 - Hare v. McClellan

Hare v. McClellan’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates (1998), Poole v. City of Waterbury (2003)

5 federal appellate · 74 state decisions

430199520002010decided

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 Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. · D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly · Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania · Weiss v. Wiederlight · Water & Way Properties v. Colt's Manufacturing Co.

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

  1. “In arriving at the intent expressed . . . in the language used, however, it is always admissible to consider the situation of the parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction, and every part of the writing should be considered with the help of that evidence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Although the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact, a party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claims by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]lthough the parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of evidence that varies or contradicts an exclusive written agreement ... that rule does not bar the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in the interpretation of contractual language.”
    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.