Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 34 CONNAPP 641 - Clement v. Clement

Clement v. Clement’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
1
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission (2002), Steiger v. J. S. Builders, Inc. (1995)

96 state decisions

4301994200020102020decided

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 Jones v. Howard · Bottoson v. Florida · Johnson v. Brown · State v. Glover · Kirby v. Planning Board of Review

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

  1. “[i]n a contempt proceeding, even in the absence of a finding of contempt, a trial court has broad discretion to make whole a party who has suffered as a result of another party's failure to comply with a court order.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"[I]t is . . . within the equitable powers of the trial court to fashion whatever orders [are] required to protect the integrity of [its original] [orders]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Clement v. Clement , 34 Conn. App. 641 , 646 , 643 A.2d 874 (1994).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Where a decision as to whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction is required, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.”
    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.