Pinder v. Pinder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Without such jurisdiction, that court was also powerless to determine any other financial claims the Defendant may have against the Plaintiff. Indeed, the dissolution judgment does not purport to have adjudicated any such claims. That judgment therefore does not bar the Defendant from presenting those claims in any subsequent litigation. The judgment is reversed in part, and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment as on file, except as modified to delete the provision concerning alimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pinder v. Pinder, No. 0093669 (May 22, 1997)

2. “In Pennoyer v. Neff, [ 95 U.S. 714 , 733 , 24 L.Ed 565 (1878)], the fountainhead of the requirement for the defendant's presence within the forum state to support the exercise of jurisdiction in personam, the court's opinion excepted `cases affecting the personal status of the plaintiff' from that requirement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Franz v. Franz, No. Fa 96 0071001 (Sep. 3, 1997)

3. “party claiming fraud must satisfy a standard of proof more exacting than the probability standard generally applicable in civil cases. Alaimo v. Royer , 188 Conn. 36 , 39 , 44 A.2d 207 (1982).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16453 - Bowers v. Bowers, No. Fa-87-0340254s (Dec. 21, 1999)