Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 CONN 457 - State v. Hanna

State v. Hanna’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

161
cited by 161 later decisions
6
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 152 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 161 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably State v. Piskorski (1979), Novella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (1972)

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 152 state decisions

3601963197019801990200020102020decided

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 Mapp v. Ohio · Johnson v. United States · Culombe v. Connecticut · Amos v. United States · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

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

  1. “The burden of proving facts essential to the privilege is on the person asserting it.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. State Dept. of Trans. v. Steinman, Inc., No. Cv 97 0571964 (May 27, 1998) · Pas Associates v. Twin Laboratories, Inc., No. Cv99 0174428 S (Dec. 5, 2001)
  2. “The burden of proving the facts essential to the privilege is on the person asserting it. [citations omitted.] This burden, includes, of course, the burden of proving the essential element that the communication was confidential.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13119 - Sabanosh v. Durant, No. Cv96 05 45 25 (Dec. 17, 1997) · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6727 - Rosado v. Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., No. Cv93302072 (Jun 2, 1995)
  3. “. . . [A] direct communication from a client to his attorney either made in or sent to the attorney's office; in such a case, relatively little factual foundation would ordinarily be required to establish the privilege and, so, the inadmissibility of any CT Page 15634 question concerning the subject matter of the communication.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15632 - Palomba v. Sullivan, No. Cv 95 0127743 (Dec. 24, 1998)

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.