Noble v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 37 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “For a party to demonstrate duress, it must prove [1] a wrongful act or threat [2] that left the victim no reasonable alternative, and [3] to which the victim in fact acceded, and that [4] the resulting transaction was unfair to the victim.... The wrongful conduct at issue could take virtually any form, but must induce a fearful state of mind in the other party, which makes it impossible for [the party] to exercise his own free will.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Conn. App. 480 - Zilkha v. Zilkha · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 12133 - Troetti v. First Nationwide Mortgage, No. Cv00-034 36 68 S (Sep. 27, 2002)

2. “The wrongful conduct at issue could take virtually any form, but must induce a fearful state of mind in the other party, which makes it impossible for [the party] to exercise his own free will.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Samler v. Massaro, No. Fa 99 0088224 S (Mar. 18, 2003) · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 15464 - In the Interest of Travis R., (Dec. 6, 2002)

3. “Contracts between attorney and client fall naturally into at least two categories: (1) those made before the relationship of attorney and client has commenced or after the relationship has terminated; and (2) those made during the relationship. . . . Courts of equity scrutinize transactions made between attorney and client during the existence of the relationship with great care and if there are doubts they will be resolved in favor of the client. . . . Nevertheless, an attorney is not prohibited from contracting with his client respecting his fees, and a contract thus made after the commencement of the relationship of attorney and client is not per se void but will by reason of the confidential nature of the relationship be closely scrutinized by the court. No undue advantage can be taken of the relationship of attorney and client in order to procure such a contract; but where the parties are free to contract, their agreement should not be set aside or the agreed compensation withheld unless fraud has been perpetrated, undue influence exerted, material facts affecting the subject matter misrepresented or suppressed, or advantage taken of a position of confidence and trust to obtain an unconscionable advantage over the party, in which case a court of equity may grant relief from such oppression, and the attorney will be confined to a reasonable charge for compensation without regard to the attempted fixation of the value of his services.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bumster v. Davis, No. Cv 97 0571163 S (Dec. 12, 2002)