24 Conn. Super. Ct. 488 - Pozzi v. Harney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he process must be left at the usual place of abode of the defendant in such a place and in such a manner that is reasonably probable the defendant will receive the notice of the action against him.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zingarelli v. Dinan, No. Cv93 0309746s (May 20, 1994) · Town of Orange v. Liner, No. Cv92 04 16 92s (Jun. 3, 1993)

2. “In order to satisfy this provision of [General Statutes Sec. 52-57 ] certain basic requirements must be met. The process must be left at the usual place of abode of the defendant in such a place and in such a manner that it is CT Page 10138 reasonably probable the defendant will receive the notice of the action against him. Sours v. Director of Highways, 172 Ohio St. 242 ; note, `Place or manner of delivery or depositing papers, under statutes permitting service of process by leaving copy at usual place of abode or residence,' 87 A.L.R.2d 1163 . . . . While pinning, typing or otherwise attaching a complaint to an outside door, where the compliant is subject to a number of outside influences over which the party to be served has no control, is generally not sufficient to constitute effective service, yet where the compliant is left inside the confines of the dwelling by slipping it beneath the door the service has been held permissible, Cugno v. Kaelin, 138 Conn. 341 ; United States v. N. Tully Semel, Inc., 88 F. Sup. 732 (D.Conn.); note, 87 A.L.R.2d 1163 , 1172; see Kletchko v. Shupp, 24 Ohio Dec. 306 . In view of the fact that the writ in the present case was actually at least half way within the apartment of the defendants at a time when the defendants were actually at home, and in a place where the defendant husband usually found his mail, the writ was left at the usual place of abode of the defendants in such a manner that it was reasonably probable that the defendants wo”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. Evans, No. 6631 (Nov. 12, 1992) · 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 6816 - 57 Pratt LLC v. Glazer, No. Hdsp-107724 (Jun. 28, 2000)

3. “pinning, tying or otherwise attaching a complaint to an outside door, where the complaint is subject to a number of outside influences over which the party to be served has no control, is generally not sufficient to constitute service.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zingarelli v. Dinan, No. Cv93 0309746s (May 20, 1994) · 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4010 - Ceci Bros. Inc. v. Five Twenty One Corp., No. Cv96 0150073 S (May 21, 1996)