Barber v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 16 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[A]n action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires proof of three essential elements, which the plaintiff must duly plead: first, that the plaintiff and the defendant were parties to a contract under which the plaintiff reasonably expected to receive certain benefits; second, that the defendant engaged in conduct that injured the plaintiffs right to receive some or all of those benefits; and third, that when committing the acts by which it injured the plaintiffs right to receive benefits it reasonably expected to receive under the contract, the defendant was acting in bad faith.” “Bad faith in general implies ... a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one’s rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive ... Bad faith means more than mere negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holmes v. General Electric Capital Corp. (In Re Holmes)

2. ““Every contract carries an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requiring that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.... Essentially it is a rule of construction designed to fulfill the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties as they presumably intended.... Conversely, [b]ad faith means more than mere negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose.” Middletown Commercial Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Middletown, 53 Conn. App. 432, 437 , 730 A.2d 1201 [(1999)], cert. denied, 250 Conn. 919 , 738 A.2d 657 (1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holmes v. General Electric Capital Corp. (In Re Holmes)

3. “'[a]greement [was] contingent upon Purchaser obtaining a commitment for a loan, to be secured by a first mortgage on the premises, in an amount not in excess of $1,300,000....' The mortgage contingency required the plaintiff to 'make prompt application for such a loan' and 'to pursue said application with diligence.' " We note that the plaintiffs, in their principal brief to this court, reference certain documents that they identify as "new evidence”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 Conn. App. 691 - Li v. Yaggi