D'ERAMO v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Before § 4-160 (b) was enacted, medical malpractice claims were treated like other claims against the state under ... the General Statutes. ... [T]he effect of § 4-160 (b) was to deprive the ... commissioner of his broad discretionary decision-making power to authorize suit against the state in cases where a claimant has brought a medical malpractice claim and filed a certificate of good faith. Instead, § 4-160 (b) requires the ... commissioner to authorize suit in all such cases. In other words, the effect of the statute was to convert a limited waiver of sovereign immunity to medical malpractice claims, subject to the discretion of the ... commissioner, to a more expansive waiver subject only to the claimant's compliance with certain procedural requirements.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Levin v. State · 175 Conn. App. 493 - Arroyo v. University of Connecticut Health Center

2. “General Statutes § 55-3... states: No provision of the general statutes, not previously contained in the statutes of the state, which imposes any new obligation on any person or corporation, shall be construed to have retrospective effect.... [W]e have uniformly interpreted § 55-3 as a rule of presumed legislative intent that statutes affecting substantive rights shall apply prospectively only.... [S]ee also Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 235 Conn. 850 , 859 n.6, 670 A.2d 1271 (1996) ( [i]t is a rule of construction that legislation is to be applied prospectively, unless the legislature clearly expresses an intention to the contrary).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Conn. App. 448 - Blossom's Escort, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act · State v. Nathaniel S.

3. “[Although] there is no precise definition of either [substantive or procedural law], it is generally agreed that a substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights while a procedural law prescribes the methods of enforcing such rights or obtaining redress.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nathaniel S. · Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey