Filippi v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A motion to dismiss ... properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court. ... A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. ... [O]ur review of the court's ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [determination] of the motion to dismiss will be de novo. ... Moreover, [t]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss. ... When a ... court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light. ... In this regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 175 - Boykin v. State · 171 Conn. App. 558 - Bin Ding v. Lazaro

2. “Any person injured in person or property through the neglect or default of the state ... by means of any defective highway ... which it is the duty of the Commissioner of Transportation to keep in repair ... may bring a civil action to recover damages sustained thereby against the commissioner in the Superior Court. No such action shall be brought ... unless notice of such injury and a general description of the same and of the cause thereof and of the time and place of its occurrence has been given in writing within ninety days thereafter to the commissioner. ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 175 - Boykin v. State · 171 Conn. App. 558 - Bin Ding v. Lazaro

3. “'[T]here are two categories of cases in which the written notice is patently defective because of a problem with the description of the place of injury. The first category consists of situations [in which] a court has found that the notice stated a location different from the [actual] place of ... injury. ... [E.g.,] Ozmun v.Burns , 18 Conn.App. 677 , 679 n.3, 680-81, 559 A.2d 1143 (1989) (notice describing location using "north”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Conn. App. 558 - Bin Ding v. Lazaro · 168 Conn. App. 570 - Graham v. Commissioner of Transportation