Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 CONNAPP 191 - Polverari v. Peatt

Polverari v. Peatt’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
2
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

10 district · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. (1994), Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (2009)

10 district · 117 state decisions

830199220002010decided

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 Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of Manchester · Burns v. Koellmer · Smithfield Peat Co. v. Scott-Lee Construction Co. · Cohen v. Cohen · Franks v. Lockwood

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

  1. “A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another. . . .”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The party seeking to invoke the clean hands doctrine to bar equitable relief must show that his opponent engaged in wilful misconduct with regard to the matter in litigation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Parties who have entered into controlling express contracts are bound by such contracts to the exclusion of inconsistent implied contract obligations . . . . Proof of a contract enforceable at law precludes the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment . . . at least in the absence of a breach of the contract by the defendant . . . a nonwillful breach by the plaintiff . . . or a mutual rescission of the contract.”
    2 later decisions 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.