41 Conn. Super. Ct. 538 - Ford v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Connecticut courts have long recognized that, `the determination of whether interest is a proper element of damages is to be made in view of the demands of justice, not through the application of any arbitrary rules . . . and . . . the allowance of interest is primarily an equitable determination to be made within the discretion of the trial court.' H.B. Toms Tree Surgery, Inc. v. Brant, 187 Conn. 343 , 348 , 446 A.2d 1 (1982), quoting Scribner v. O'Brien, Inc., 169 Conn. 389 , 405-406 , 363 A.2d 160 (1975). Where the detention of sums due and payable is adjudged to be wrongful, the courts have concluded that interest is a proper element of recovery. See Marcus v. Marcus, 175 Conn. 138 , 146 , 394 A.2d 727 (1978); Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldman, 161 Conn. 265 , 274-75 , 287 A.2d 374 (1971); LaBow v. LaBow, 13 Conn. App. 330 , 352-53 , 537 A.2d 157 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988). Interest awarded under the provisions of 37-3a is intended to compensate a party for the wrongful detention of sums rightfully owed them. See Marcus v. Marcus, supra, 146 ; LaBow v. LaBow, supra, 352-53 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fowler v. Fowler, No. 21248 (Jan. 6, 1994)