Marshall v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2025
9 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 Shuster v. Buckley · Sicaras v. City of Hartford · Dart Industries, Inc. v. Clark · In re Shaquanna M. · Morris Silverstein's Appeal
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] trial court holds broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for a continuance. Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance is governed by an abuse of discretion standard that, although not unreviewable, affords the trial court broad discretion in matters of continuances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Superior Court cannot consider or adjudicate issues beyond the scope of those proper for determination by the order or decree attacked. . . . [T]he court has subject matter jurisdiction limited only to the order or decree appealed from.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In a probate appeal . . . the Superior Court's jurisdiction is statutory and limited to the order appealed from. . . . The appeal brings to the Superior Court only the order appealed from.”
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.