Forsell v. Conservation Commission’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The credibility of witnesses and the determination of factual issues are matters within the province of the administrative agency and this court cannot disturb the conclusions reached by the commissioner if there is evidence that reasonably supports his decision. . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leake v. Commissioner of Consumer Prot., No. Cv98-0061494s (Mar. 25, 1999) · 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12118 - Avalon Bay Comm. v. Town of Orange, No. Cv 98-0492660 (Aug. 12, 1999)

2. “[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leake v. Commissioner of Consumer Prot., No. Cv98-0061494s (Mar. 25, 1999) · 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12118 - Avalon Bay Comm. v. Town of Orange, No. Cv 98-0492660 (Aug. 12, 1999)

3. “We conclude that the commission's decision that the plaintiff's application proposed activities the impact of which on the existing . . . watercourses or wetlands was both likely and significant is not supported by substantial evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United Jewish Ctr. v. Inland Wetlands, No. Cv00 034 03 51 S (Aug. 9, 2001)