28 Conn. Super. Ct. 493 - Botelho v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]t common law, when a minor child is injured by reason of the negligent act of a third party, two causes of action arise, one in favor of the child to recover for injuries and the other in favor of the parent for consequential damages such as expenses incurred by reason of those injuries. The right of the parent to recover is independent of the right of the child.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kol v. Novella, No. 31 85 11 (Feb. 27, 1996) · 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 384 - Green v. Mancusi, No. Cv92 0128849 S (Jan. 18, 1994)

2. “is in no sense a party to the action” and that”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kol v. Novella, No. 31 85 11 (Feb. 27, 1996) · Lachance v. City of Waterbury, No. Cv 98 0148936 (Aug. 22, 2001)

3. “`[t]he next friend of an infant plaintiff cannot maintain a suit in his own name, but the suit must be brought in the name of the infant. The process must run in the name of the infant by his next friend, and not in the name of the next friend acting for the infant .'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lachance v. City of Waterbury, No. Cv 98 0148936 (Aug. 22, 2001) · 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4543 - Pierre Seabrook v. Greater Bridgeport T., No. Cv95 032 83 66 (Apr. 9, 1998)