Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 CONN 676 - Gil v. Courthouse One

Gil v. Courthouse One’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

2 district · 73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Doe v. Yale University (2000), Dowling v. Slotnik (1998)

2 district · 73 state decisions

3501997200020102020decided

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 State v. Ellis · Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc. · Crochiere v. Board of Education of Town of Enfield · Mayer v. Spanel International, Ltd. · Darak v. Darak

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

  1. “[The Supreme Court] consistently [has] expressed reluctance to construe statutes retroactively where the statutes affect substantial changes in the law, unless the legislative intent clearly and unequivocally appears otherwise. . . . (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Courthouse One, 239 Conn. 676 , 686 , [ 687 A.2d 146 (1997)].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Mercede v. Cff Center Association, Inc., No. 318679 (May 16, 1997) · Renz v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. Cv-96-0557752-S (Jul. 13, 1999)
  2. “No provision of the general statutes, not previously contained in the statutes of the state, which imposes any new obligation on any person or corporation, shall be construed to have a retrospective effect.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Wozniak v. Keystone Insurance Company, No. Cv 950376435 (May 14, 1997) · 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16073 - Keenan Navarro Builders v. Breault, No. Cv01-0065806s (Dec. 10, 2001)
  3. “as a rule of presumed legislative intent that statutes affecting substantive rights shall apply prospectively only.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Levine v. State Teachers Retirement Board, No. Cv96 0562830 (Jan. 28, 1998) · Estate of Brooks v. Commissioner of Revenue Services

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.