Kronberg v. Peacock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “. . . Practice Book [§ 17-49] provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law . . . and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to CT Page 15720 demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kronberg v. Peacock , 67 Conn. App. 668 , 671 , 789 A.2d 510 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 902 , 793 A.2d 1089 (2002).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 15711 - Spingola v. White Water Mt. Resorts, No. Cv 01 0094538 S (Dec. 10, 2002)

2. “nam[ed] the proper defendant for the legal theory alleged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 4363 - Cogan v. Chase Manhattan Auto Financial Corp., No. 445747 (Mar. 25, 2003)