Mroz v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “— [1] upon Mroz’s release from an alcoholism treatment program, sent Mroz a “welcome home” present which included a bottle of alcohol; — [2] put Mroz in situations where Mroz would resume consumption of alcohol after a hiatus following a bout with alcoholism; — [3] encouraged, promoted and arranged for the repossession of Mroz’s Corvette, and subsequently purchased it and resold it to Lee’s own daughter; — [4] enticed Mroz to move his accounting offices to the Martin Tool business premises, and proceeded to cause the removal of Mroz’s client files and then evicted Mroz without legal process; — [5] hired Mroz’s only full-time certified public accountant and bookkeeper; — [6] encouraged, promoted and arranged for the repossession of Mroz’s boat; — [7] told clients and friends of Mroz that Mroz was a drug user and had stolen money from Tubby’s and Martin Tool; — [8] filed false criminal embezzlement charges against Mroz; — [9] after having conducted the aforementioned activities, called Mroz and said, “Now, I’ve got you where I want you, mother-fucker. I going to get everything you have. I’m going to watch you squirm” ’ — [10] chased and physically attacked Mroz on the premises of Martin Tool; — [11] kicked and dented the door of Mroz’s van and struck the driver’s side window while Mroz was in the van; — [12] with knowledge that Mroz’s daughter was a gymnast, told Mroz that “he would break her legs’” — [13] “har[ ]assingly and threateningly” telephoned Mroz’s residence over 250 ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mroz v. Lee · 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 1738 - Lucuk v. Cook, No. Cv95 0050210s (Feb. 11, 1998)

2. “A state is not without law save as its highest court has declared it. There are many rules of decision commonly accepted and acted upon by the bar and inferior courts which are nevertheless laws of the state although the highest court of the state has never passed upon them. [T]he federal court is not free to reject the state rule merely because it has not received the sanction of the highest state court . . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 714 F. Supp. 2d 751 - William v. BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES

3. “in examining the totality of the circumstances ... paying particular attention to whethér there is an abuse of a relationship which puts defendant in a position of actual or apparent authority ... a reasonable person might infer an abuse of such a relationship or a preying upon Mroz’s peculiar susceptibilities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mroz v. Lee