Aillon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

168

cited by 168 later decisions

cited 2 times by the Supreme Court

states following

November 2021

most recently cited

2 district · 164 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 168 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably State v. Golding (1989), Connecticut v. Johnson (1983)

2 district · 164 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 Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Illinois v. Allen · Tumey v. State of Ohio · Estes v. Texas

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

“as immaterial, evidence as to the expressions and arguments of the jurors in their deliberations and evidence as to their own motives, beliefs, mistakes, and mental operations generally, in arriving at their verdict”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Jenkins v. Kos, No. Cv99-88449 (Jan. 31, 2002) · Chase v. Ct Restaurant Group Inc., No. Cv 92-0517156 (Jan. 31, 1997)
“[T]he various policies behind the rule [are] to give stability to the verdicts of jurors, to minimize the temptation for jury-tampering, and to prevent inquisition into the arguments and reasoning of the jurors that go into their ultimate verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Chase v. Ct Restaurant Group, No. Cv 92 0517156 (Feb. 3, 1997) · 169 Conn. App. 849 - Ford v. St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center
“it is today universally agreed that on a motion to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial the verdict cannot be affected, either favorably or unfavorably, by the circumstances: that one or more jurors misunderstood the judge's instruction”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Chase v. Ct Restaurant Group Inc., No. Cv 92-0517156 (Jan. 31, 1997) · Chase v. Ct Restaurant Group, No. Cv 92 0517156 (Feb. 3, 1997)

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.