Fernandes v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Giulietti v. Giulietti (2001), 111 Conn. App. 323 - Bloom v. Miklovich (2008)
70 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 Appleton v. Board of Education · United Aircraft Corporation v. Fusari · State v. Tavone · Fidelity Trust Co. v. Irick · Wilcox v. Willard Shopping Center Associates
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Due to the frequent impracticality inherent in actual division, however, all states, except Maine, have, by statute, expanded the right to partition to permit a partition by sale under certain circumstances. See Restatement, 2 Property c. 11, pp. 658-61.... On the basis of the history of the right to partition, and in light of the legislative treatment of that right, we have held repeatedly that in resolving partition actions, the only two modes of relief within the power of the court are partition by division of real estate and partition by sale. ‘tA] court is limited to rendering a judgment of either partition in kind or by sale of the real property; Klaus v. Klaus, 143 Conn. 218, 221 , 121 A.2d 283 (1956); thus terminating the ownership relationship between the parties.” [Citations omitted.] Accordingly, remedies that fall outside the realm of partition in kind or partition by sale are not ‘legally permissible”: Wilcox v. Willard Shopping Center Associates, supra, 324, 544 A.2d 1207 ; and a “court is precluded from substituting its own ideas of what might be a wise provision in place of a clear expression of legislative will.” Penfield v. Jarvis, supra, at 474-75 , 399 A.2d 1280 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ny person holding real property as a joint tenant, tenant in common, coparcener or tenant in tail has a right to partition pursuant to § 52-495 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The right to partition is well settled and its history has been documented thoroughly . . . The right to partition has long been regarded as an absolute right, and the difficulty involved in partitioning property and the inconvenience to other tenants are not grounds for denying the remedy. No person can be compelled to remain the owner with another of real estate, not even if he become[s] such by his own act; every owner is entitled to the fullest enjoyment of his property, and that can come only through an ownership free from dictation by others as to the manner in which it may be exercised. Therefore the law afford[s] to every owner with another relief by way of partition . . . Through the right to partition, it was intended that the undivided possession should be severed, and that each person having the right to be in possession of the whole property should exchange that right for one more exclusive in its nature, whereby, during the continuance of his estate, he should be CT Page 4447-as entitled to the sole use and enjoyment of some specific [portion].”
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.