State v. Nichols’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 state decisions

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.

1. “The notion of punishment, as we understand it, cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law, and for the purposes of assessing whether a given sanction constitutes multiple punishments barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, we must follow the notion where it leads.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wendy H., No. Mv 94-618025 (Apr. 20, 1995) · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4226 - State v. Hickham, No. Mv94-618025 (Apr. 20, 1995)

2. “We said in Halper that `a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wendy H., No. Mv 94-618025 (Apr. 20, 1995) · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4226 - State v. Hickham, No. Mv94-618025 (Apr. 20, 1995)

3. ““[0]ur cases have acknowledged that for the defendant even remedial sanctions carry the sting of punishment.” [Citations omitted.] Thus, the fact that a statute designed primarily to serve remedial purposes incidentally serves the purposes of punishment as well does not mean that the statute results in punishment for double jeopardy purposes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schillerstrom v. State