Honan v. Dimyan’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
6 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co. (2011), 103 Conn. App. 20 - Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti (2007)
6 district · 29 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 Truk-Away of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury · State v. Salmon · Legassey v. Shulansky · Tirozzi v. Shelby Insurance
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The transactional test measures the preclusive effect of a prior judgment, which includes any claims relating to the cause of action that were actually made or might have been made.... A cause of action for the purpose of the transactional test is the group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff.... It is well settled that [a] judgment may be final in a res judicata sense as to a part of an action although litigation continues as to the rest.... Thus, res judicata may operate to preclude a claim decided in a previous proceeding within the same case.... [F]or purposes of res judicata, a judgment will ordinarily be considered final if it is not tentative, provisional, or contingent and represents the completion of all steps in the adjudication of the claim by the court, short of any steps by way of execution or enforcement that may be consequent upon the particular kind of adjudication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he plaintiffs had an opportunity to litigate fully the matter of judicial misconduct. . . . Whether Judge Stodolink should have been disqualified for allegedly permitting misconduct to occur during trial was decided by this court in the plaintiffs' previous appeal [in Honan I]. In that CT Page 15097 case, we concluded that the alleged misconduct was not so prejudicial as to deprive the plaintiffs of a fair trial . . . [w]e will not permit the plaintiffs to relitigate the matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, [provides that] a former judgment on a claim, if rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action on the same claim.”
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.