Boyles v. Preston’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably 103 Conn. App. 20 - Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti (2007), Bicio v. Brewer (2005)
32 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 United States v. Calandra · United States v. Janis · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza · Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. M Scott · Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wisconsin
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.
“Our courts have held that where a party has submitted to the court's jurisdiction by contesting an application for prejudgment remedy on the merits, that action will suffice as a general appearance in the case-in-chief. See Iffland Lumber Co. v. Tucker , 33 Conn. Sup. 692 , 694-96 , 368 A.2d 606 (1976). Once the application for prejudgment remedy and the accompanying documents are filed properly with the clerk of the court, "the case is then pending in court. . . . The court becomes seized of the matter by virtue of the filing of the application, and the hearing on the application should be treated like any other interlocutory proceeding in a pending case.' Id., 695 . Thus, having failed to seek to dismiss the action within thirty days of filing his appearance to contest the application for prejudgment remedy, the defendant's motion properly was denied as untimely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he plaintiff filed an application for a prejudgment remedy, which was served on the defendant on May 23, 1995. On June 22, 1995, [the defendant's attorney] filed an appearance for the defendant and represented him at the hearing on the application held on August 8, 1995, when the court granted the plaintiff a prejudgment remedy. . . . A process server engaged by the plaintiff made the attachment on August 10, 1995, and the CT Page 52 complaint was served on the defendant on August 11, 1995. . . . The defendant subsequently filed an amended motion to dismiss, dated October 25, 1995, in which he . . . raised a number of different issues contesting the court's jurisdiction over him as well as the court's subject matter jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The purpose of § 52-192a is to encourage pretrial resolution of disputes . . . to save the time and expense of trial . . . and, consequently, to conserve judicial resources. . . . [T]he strong public policy favoring the pretrial resolution of disputes . . . is substantially furthered by encouraging defendants to accept reasonable offers of judgment. . . . Section 52-192a encourages fair and reasonable compromise between litigants by penalizing a party that fails to accept a reasonable offer of settlement. . . . In other words, interest awarded under § 52-192a is solely related to a defendant's rejection of an advantageous offer to settle before trial and his subsequent waste of judicial resources.”
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.