38 Conn. Super. Ct. 70 - Hite v. Field’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2015
6 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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Fuentes v. Shevin · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. · North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Accordingly, we hold that the plaintiffs were denied their right to due process of law, guaranteed them by both the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article First, Section Ten of the Connecticut Constitution”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“not one which was reasonably calculated to apprise the plaintiffs (the tenants) of the pendency of the foreclosure action CT Page 4300 so as to afford them an opportunity to present their objection”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“opportunity under the statute for a meaningful hearing on the issues of whether the lis pendens should be discharged”
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.