Lippmann v. Rashkoff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 8 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. “(d) The provisions of this section shall apply . . . any action between the same parties or the legal representatives of either of them for the same cause of action or subject of action brought to any court in this state, either before dismissal of the original action and its affirmance or within one year after the dismissal and affirmance, and to any action brought to the United States circuit or district court for the district of Connecticut which has been dismissed without trial upon its merits or because of lack of jurisdiction in such court. If such action is within the jurisdiction of any state court, the time for bringing the action to the state court shall commence from the date of dismissal in the United States court, or, if an appeal or writ of error has been taken from the dismissal, from the final determination of the appeal or writ of error.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Louden v. Charles Brand MacHinery, Inc., No. Cv930349370 (Nov. 17, 1994) · 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4923 - Loges v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, No. 533269 (Jun. 17, 1996)

2. “[t]he applicability of General Statutes § 52-592 , construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, hinges on the parties bringing the action initially within a state or federal court in this state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4923 - Loges v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, No. 533269 (Jun. 17, 1996)