Mirabal v. Mirabal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Facts showing that the matter involved in a suit constitutes a subject-matter consigned by law to the jurisdiction of that court are essential to jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit." Castro v. Viera , 207 Conn. 420 , 433-34 , 541 A.2d 1216 (1988). Subject matter jurisdiction, unlike personal jurisdiction, cannot be conferred on the court by waiver or consent of the parties, nor can the court confer jurisdiction over itself. Id., 427-30 ." "Such jurisdiction relates to the court's competency to exercise power. . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted) Plasil v. Tableman , 223 Conn. 68 , 80 , 618 A.2d 763 (1992); Mirabal v. Mirabal , 30 Conn. App. 821 , 825 , 622 A.2d 1037 (1993).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11745 - Norberg v. McCrensky-norberg, No. 372253 (Oct. 27, 1995) · 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6782 - Phoebe G. v. Solnit, No. Cv96-0135437s (Jun. 30, 1998)

2. “Under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution of the United Statutes (article IV § 1) and its implementing statute ( 62 Stat. 947 , 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ), the judicial proceedings of a state must be given full faith and credit in every other state. The judgment rendered in one state is entitled to full faith and credit only if it is a final judgment, and the judgment is final only if it is not subject to modification in the state in which it was rendered.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Franz v. Franz, No. Fa 96 0071001 (Sep. 3, 1997) · 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 111 - Panganiban v. Panganiban, No. 538834 (Jan. 20, 1998)

3. “any judgment decree or order of a court of any state in the United States in an action for . . . dissolution of marriage, for the custody or support of children . . . in which both parties have entered an appearance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Powell v. Powell, No. Fa95-0710899 (May 10, 1996) · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11745 - Norberg v. McCrensky-norberg, No. 372253 (Oct. 27, 1995)