Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 A2D 445 - State v. Trumbull

State v. Trumbull’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
February 2000
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2000

3 state decisions

1019621970198019902000decided

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 United States v. William Rabinowich · State v. Pundy · State v. Guilfoyle · State v. Gargano · State v. DeGennaro

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

  1. “The axiom is elementary that ignorance of the law excuses no one; and refuge from the consequences of one's conscious acts cannot be found behind a wall of legal advice, be it sound or unsound. . . . Our courts have held that . . . a defendant, in an action in equity, may seek to mitigate damages or ameliorate the decree by showing that he acted in good faith, innocently, by inadvertence, or upon competent legal advice. But, even in civil cases, the rule is that while such reliance on counsel may exonerate the defendant from any intention to do a legal wrong, it does not relieve him from responsibility for the wrong which he committed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he `use' is not to be construed so strictly as to require proof of personal execution of the prohibited acts; the statute permits a broader construction and includes procuring or causing such acts to be done.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “it was enough to satisfy the statute if the defendant set in operation [in Connecticut] at least one act essential to the commission of the crime.”
    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.