Opoku v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford (2013), Durkin Village Plainville, LLC v. Cunningham (2006)
96 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kim v. Magnotta · Smith v. Smith · Jaser v. Jaser · Cantoni v. Xerox Corp. · G. F. Construction, Inc. v. Cherry Hill Construction, Inc.
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he purpose of reargument is . . . to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been some misapprehension of facts. . . . It may also be used to address alleged inconsistencies in the trial court's memorandum of decision as well as claims of law that the [movant] claimed were not addressed by the court.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] motion to reargue [however] is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple or to present additional cases or briefs which could have been presented at the time of the original argument.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Practice Book § 377 [now § 17-43 (a)] is almost identical to the statutory language [of § 52-212 ]. To obtain relief from a judgment rendered after default a two pronged test must be satisfied. The aggrieved person must show reasonable cause, or that a good defense existed at the time of the judgment, and that the movant was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from making the defense . . . Practice Book § 17-43 (a) also provides that the `written motion shall be verified by the oath of the complainant or the complainant's attorney. . . .'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.