Rapin v. Nettleton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed . . . as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1199 - Ocwen Federal Bank v. Angle, No. Cv99 033 49 58 S (Jan. 22, 2001) · 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13468 - Proto v. Blanco, No. Cv9-12266 (Sep. 28, 2001)

2. “[a] reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . the Appellate Court . . . or the Superior Court reviewing the findings of . . . attorney trial referees. See Practice Book § 443 [now Practice Book § 19-17 ];. . . . The factual findings of a [trial referee] on any issue are reversible only if they are clearly erroneous. . . . [A reviewing court] cannot retry the facts or CT Page 11767 pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it. or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 11764 - Holt v. People's Bank, No. Cv 96 0153281 (Aug. 24, 1999) · 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12259 - MacMillan v. Higgins, No. Cv 93 0134679 (Sep. 7, 1999)

3. “Where the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision; where the factual basis of the court's decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 11764 - Holt v. People's Bank, No. Cv 96 0153281 (Aug. 24, 1999) · 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12259 - MacMillan v. Higgins, No. Cv 93 0134679 (Sep. 7, 1999)