State v. Januszewski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 306 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 309 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “routine access to personnel files is not to be had. Requests for information should be specific and should set forth the issue in the case to which the personnel information sought will relate.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rogue, No. Cr22-30492 (Dec. 18, 1998) · 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5163 - State v. Dejesus, No. Cr 4-241660 (Jul. 18, 1996)

2. “No criminal defendant has the right to conduct a general `fishing expedition' into the personnel records of a police officer.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5163 - State v. Dejesus, No. Cr 4-241660 (Jul. 18, 1996) · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 9596 - Donaldson v. Sheffield, No. Cv 99 0433074 S (Jul. 26, 2002)

3. “"The disclosure of such information [contained in a personnel file] must be carefully tailored to a legitimate and demonstrated need for such information in any given case. Where disclosure of the personnel file would place in the hands of a [party] irrelevant or personal and sensitive information concerning . . . [another], the entire file should not be disclosed. No. [party] has the right to conduct a general "fishing expedition into the personnel records of [another]. . . . Because discovery of matters contained in a . . . personnel file involves careful discrimination between material that relates to the issues involved and that which is irrelevant to those issues, the judicial authority should exercise its discretion in determining what matters should be disclosed. . . . Because the law furnishes no precise or universal test of relevancy, the question must be determined on a case by case basis according to the teachings of reason and judicial experience. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp ., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 300272, quoting State v. Januszewski , 182 Conn. 142 , 172-173 , 438 A.2d 679 (1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 922 , 101 S.Ct. 3159 , 69 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1981).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 9596 - Donaldson v. Sheffield, No. Cv 99 0433074 S (Jul. 26, 2002) · 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10697 - Zito v. Sports Authority, Inc., No. Cv99-0495291s (Aug. 28, 2000)