State v. Nardini’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
256 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 256 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably State v. DeJesus (2008), Community Collaborative of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Ganim (1997)
256 state decisions
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 Baker v. Carr · Burks v. United States · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · United States v. DiFrancesco · Sanabria v. United States
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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Because courts are established to resolve actual controversies, before a claimed controversy is entitled to a resolution on the merits it must be justiciable. Justiciability requires (1) that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute: Courts exist for determination of actual and existing controversies, and under the law of this state the courts may not be used as a vehicle to obtain judicial opinions on points of law. Harkins v. Driscoll , 165 Conn. 407 , 409 , 334 A.2d 901 (1973) . . . (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse . . . (3) that the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power . . . and (4) that CT Page 16558 the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant . (Citations omitted.) State v. Nardini , 187 Conn. 109 , 111-12 , 445 A.2d 304 (1982)." (emphasis added)”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is a fundamental concept of judicial administration . . . that no person is entitled to set the machinery of the courts in operation except to obtain redress for an injury he has suffered or to prevent an injury he may suffer, either in an individual or a representative capacity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n criminal cases subject to sentence review, the imposition of the modified sentence following the action of the sentence review division is merely formal and ministerial. The trial court which imposes the modified sentence has no appellate authority and therefore is not authorized to review the action of the sentence review division. State v. Deep, 181 Conn. 284, 286 , 435 A.2d 333 (1980). Furthermore, because it is bound by the previous action... it lacks any independent discretionary authority to impose its own sentence. If the modified sentence is illegal in any respect the appropriate remedy for correcting such illegality is by appeal to [the Supreme Court of Connecticut]. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Jordan v. State
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.