Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Conn. 593 - State v. Reardon

State v. Reardon’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
3
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably State v. Kurvin (1982), State v. Sharpe (1985)

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 57 state decisions

380197719801990200020102020decided

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 Pointer v. Texas · Dutton v. Evans · State v. Evans · Mancusi v. Stubbs · State v. Hayes

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

  1. “qualified professional toxicologists and chemists.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It has been held that there is no rule that facts proven under exceptions to the hearsay rule, though received in evidence, must be denied all evidentiary value where there is a reasonable necessity for such an exception, and where it is supported by an adequate basis for assurance that that evidence has those qualities of reliability and trustworthiness attributed to other evidence admissible under long-established exceptions to the hearsay rule without violating constitutional rights. Kay v. United States, 255 F.2d 476, 480-81 (4th Cir. [1958]).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The jury’s consideration of Dr. Reading’s testimony, which we have held was admissible and which bore strong indicia of reliability, and upon which the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine, did not deprive the defendant of the right of confrontation guaranteed by our state or federal constitutions.”
    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.