25 Conn. Super. Ct. 183 - Hamill v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1998
1 district · 5 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 Killian v. United States · Ardoline v. Keegan · Rathkopf v. Pearson · Turner v. Scanlon · Ebersole v. Lowengrub
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 31-23-4. Brake equipment required. “(1) Every motor vehicle, * * *• when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold such vehicle * * * ” '“Section 31-23-6. Maintenance of brakes. “All brakes shall be maintained in good working order * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gillespie v. Lawton“It follows that there is no issue on the question of the proximate cause of the resulting collision of the two vehicles. Therefore, on the questions of negligence and proximate cause there remains nothing to litigate.”
1 later decision 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.