Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 CONN 540 - Alexander v. Robinson

Alexander v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2002

24 state decisions

130198119902000decided

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 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · McGinnis v. Royster · Smith v. Westchester County Bar Ass'n · State v. Onofrio · Amsel v. Brooks

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

  1. “No person may be committed to [a correctional center] without a mittimus signed by the judge or clerk of the court which committed him, declaring the cause of commitment and requiring the warden or . . . administrator to receive and keep him in [custody] . . . for the period fixed by the judgment of said court or CT Page 6053 until he is legally discharged; and such mittimus shall be sufficient authority to the officer to commit such person, and to the warden or . . . administrator to receive and hold him in custody[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The mittimus is the warrant by virtue of which a convict is transported to and rightly held in prison. We have observed that a mittimus after conviction in a criminal case is similar to an execution after judgment in a civil case; it is final process and carries into effect the judgment of the court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the word `held' in [ 18-7 ] is not [as] talismanic as the trial court found it to be in saying that because the defendant has not yet begun serving his consecutive sentence, he cannot be regarded as `held' under this sentence under 18-7 .”
    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.