Rocco v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 district · 81 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[U]nder the law of our state, an action is commenced not when the writ is returned but when it is served upon the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Conn. App. 771 - Mosby v. Bd. of Educ. of Norwalk · 189 Conn. App. 93 - Harvey v. Dept. of Correction

2. ““The related doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion as stated in our cases may seem to imply a meaningful distinction between claim and issue for proposes of determining what matters axe precluded by a former adjudication. If so understood, sound principles of finality are made to depend on the terminology used to express them. The concepts of issue preclusion and claim preclusion are simply related ideas on a continuum, differentiated, perhaps by their breadth, and express no more than the fundamental principle that once a matter has been fully and fairly litigated, and finally decided, it comes to rest. . . . The process of defining the claim ... is thus aimed at defining the matters that both might and should have been advanced in the first litigation. . . . The decision whether to apply res judicata to matters not actually litigated should be made in light of the policies underlying that doctrine — the competing interests of the defendant and of the courts in bringing litigation to a close and of the plaintiff in the vindication of a just claim. . . . “Res judicata, as a judicial doctrine . . . should be applied as necessary to promote its underlying purposes. These purposes are generally identified as being (1) to promote judicial economy by minimizing repetitive litigation; (2) to prevent inconsistent judgments which undermine the integrity of the judicial system; and (3) to provide repose by preventing a person from being [harassed] by vexatious litigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bruno v. Geller

3. “If any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits because of insufficient service ... the plaintiff ... may commence a new action, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, for the same cause at any time within one year after the determination of the original action or after the reversal of the judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 453 F. Supp. 2d 439 - Chappetta v. Soto