Hultman v. Blumenthal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[B]ecause the state can act only through its officers and agents, a suit against a state officer concerning a matter in which the officer represents the state is. in effect, against the state . . . In its pristine form, the doctrine of sovereign immunity would exempt the state from suit entirely, because the sovereign could not be sued in its own courts and there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the tight depends. . . . This absolute bar of actions against the state has been greatly modified both by statutes effectively consenting to suit in some instances as well as by judicial decisions in others.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bailey v. Blumenthal, No. Cv02-0812552s (Jan. 16, 2003)

2. “Unlike the defendants in Shay, the defendant in this case was not acting to justify prior misconduct. The defendant was informing the public of an investigation duly conducted by his office and was carrying out the government policy of reporting to the public those facts that the attorney general claimed supported the allegations of medicaid fraud.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 10759 - Adoption Services of Conn. v. Pivirotto, No. Cv 98 0411721 (Aug. 19, 2002)

3. “(1) a state official has been sued; (2) the suit concerns some matter in which that official represents the state; (3) the state is the real party against whom relief is sought; and (4) the judgment, though nominally against the official, will operate to control the activities of the state or subject it to liability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 8138 - Carson v. Ragaglia, No. Cv00 076213s (Jun. 27, 2002)