Mancinone v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2003 · most notably Muha v. United Oil Co. (1980), Frazier v. Manson (1979)
2 district · 37 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 Hurlbut v. Lemelin · Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Walsh · Hartford Hospital v. City & Town of Hartford · State v. Nelson · Little v. Ives
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any person who has been denied bail or who has been unable to obtain bail and who is subsequently imprisoned is entitled to commutation of his sentence by the number of days which he spent in a community correctional center from the time lie was denied or was unable to obtain bail to the time he was so imprisoned. The commissioner of correction shall, if such person has conformed to the rules of the institution, credit such person with the number of days to which the supervising officer of the correctional center where .such person was confined while awaiting trial certifies such person was confined between the denial of bail to him or his inability to obtain bail and his imprisonment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LaReau v. Wesowicz“[The legislature] may not have envisaged such situations where a person would be held in custody as a parole violator in addition to custody under a mittimus or for lack of bail. Nevertheless, the legislature did not restrict the operation of the statutes to circumstances where either the existence of a mittimus or lack of bail was the sole reason for custody. "It is not for us to search out some intent which we may believe the legislature actually had and give effect to it, but we are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words it has used."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he legislature did not restrict the operation of the statutes to circumstances where either the existence of a mittimus or lack of bail was the sole reason for custody---Each of the plaintiffs in these cases comes within the precise language in which the legislature enacted its directive. If it had wished to exclude from the operation of the statutes those who would not be released from custody even if they posted bail that exception could easily have been spelled out.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Lampman
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.