Lechner v. Holmberg’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
4 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 1998 · most notably Doe v. Manson (1981), Doe v. Institute of Living, Inc. (1978)
4 district · 45 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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission · Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corporation · Kellems v. Brown · Rathkopf v. Pearson
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state’s attorney pertaining to such charge shall be immediately and automatically erased. (e) The clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of such records in the office of the chief court administrator or any law enforcement agency having information contained in such erased records shall not disclose to anyone information pertaining to any charge erased under any provision of this section and such clerk or person charged with the retention and control of such records shall forward a notice of such erasure to any law enforcement agency to which he knows information concerning the arrest has been disseminated and such disseminated information shall be erased from the records of such law enforcement agency. Such clerk or such person, as the case may be, shall seal all court records and place them in locked files maintained for this purpose; or upon the request of the accused cause the actual physical destruction of such records. No fee shall be charged in any court with respect to any petition under this section. Any person who shall have been the subject of such an erasure shall be deemed to have never been arrested within the meaning of the general statutes with respect to the proceedings so erased and may so swear under oath. (f) Upon motion pr”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"While there may have been a legitimate doubt as to the operation and effect of section 54-90 , the duty of the officials did not involve an exercise of discretion; either they were required to disclose the transcript or they were prohibited from doing so. While in a very broad sense the duty was not `clear' at the time one way or the other, one of the purposes of the action was to establish the existence of the unqualified right to performance. The court did not err, therefore, in concluding that the action of mandamus was proper."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect innocent persons from the harmful consequences of a criminal charge of which he is subsequently acquitted.”
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.