Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 Conn. App. 601 - State v. Eason

116 Conn. App. 601 - State v. Eason’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Golding · Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation · Paalan v. United States · Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp. · State v. Colon

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

  1. “To prevail on his unpreserved constitutional claim, the defendant must satisfy all four conditions set forth in Golding . He must show that (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt. ... Failure to satisfy any of the four conditions will cause the defendant's claim to fail. ... The appellate tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the defendant's claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If the judge chooses to intervene in a criminal trial, such intervention must reach a significant extent and be adverse to the defendant to a substantial degree before risking impaired functioning of the finder of fact or the appearance of an impartial judge.”
    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.