Hunte v. Blumenthal’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital (1996), Shay v. Rossi (2000)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 89 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 Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform · South Dakota v. Nebraska · Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. · Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Ass'n v. Freedom of Information Commission · Spring v. Constantino
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The state shall save harmless and indemnify any state officer or employee . . . from financial loss and expense arising out of any claim, demand, suit or judgment by reason of his . . . alleged deprivation of any person's civil rights or other act or omission resulting in damage or injury . . . if the officer, employee or member is found to have been acting in the discharge of his duties or within the scope of his employment and such act or omission is found not to have been wanton, reckless or malicious. CT Page 13468-db”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“guided by settled principles of statutory construction that assist [it] in ascertaining the intent of the legislature. . . . The legislative intent is to be discerned by reference to the language of the statute, its legislative history and surrounding circumstances, the policy the [statute] was designed to implement, and the statute's relationship to the existing legislation and common law principles governing the same subject matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No state officer or employee shall be personally liable for damage or injury, not wanton, reckless or malicious, caused in the discharge of his duties or within the scope of his employment. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.