Herzig v. Horrigan’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Millward Brown, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services (2002), Tadros v. Tripodi (2005)
42 state decisions
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 State v. Golding · White v. Burns · David Kawananakoa v. Ellen Albertina Polyblank · Horton v. Meskill · Amore v. Frankel
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he source of sovereign power in the state of Connecticut is the constitution, and it is recognized that a sovereign is immune from suit on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he number of potential judgment debtors whose funds may be held by the state is immense. There are thousands of state vendors who may be putative judgment debtors and many lesser winners of the state lottery, as well as potential weekly winners of it, and potential daily winners of the various gaming prizes established by the state, each of whom may be a judgment debtor. Until such time as the legislature grants judgment creditors the right to reach such sums held by the state for such winners and vendors, the courts should continue to apply the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[The Connecticut Supreme Court has] . . . recognized that because the state can act only through its officers and agents, a suit against a state officer concerning a matter in which the officer represents the state, is, in effect, against the state.”
1 later decision 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.