Mickey v. Mickey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The principles that govern statutory construction are well established. When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. . . . In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § 1-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered. . . . When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter. . . .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Conn. App. 388 - Ventura v. Town of E. Haven · Raftopol v. Ramey

2. “Although a trial court may interpret an ambiguous judgment ... a motion for clarification may not ... be used to modify or to alter the substantive terms of a prior judgment ... and we look to the substance of the relief sought by the motion rather than the form to determine whether a motion is properly characterized as one seeking a clarification or a modification....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 Conn. App. 760 - Almeida v. Almeida

3. “Whenever the failure to identify an issue in a preliminary statement of issues prejudices an opposing party, the [appellate] court may refuse to consider such issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Conn. App. 565 - Downing v. Dragone