Soltesz v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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. “A hearing on an application for prejudgment remedy is not a full-scale trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claims . . . but rather concerns only whether and to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to have property of a defendant held in custody of the law pending final adjudication of the merits of the action.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Savitt v. Condon Olderman Realty, No. Cv01 073254 (Oct. 31, 2002) · Christiaanse v. Dubyoski, No. Cv00 0071132s (Oct. 3, 2000)

2. “It is clear that a `hearing' must allow the defendant an opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for prejudgment remedy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6057 - Stanley Works v. Halstead New England C., No. Cv01-0506367s (May 18, 2001)

3. “Nash v. Weed Duryea Co ., 236 Conn. 746 , 749 , 674 A.2d 849 (1996). The trial court has”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6057 - Stanley Works v. Halstead New England C., No. Cv01-0506367s (May 18, 2001)