State v. Greene’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
143 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably State v. Prioleau (1995), Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. (1999)
143 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 Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · Delli Paoli v. United States · Kelly v. United States · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of joinder . . . is to foster economy and expedition of judicial administration. State v. Schroff, 198 Conn. 405 , 409 , 503 A.2d 167 (1986); see State v. King, 187 Conn. 292 , 296-98 , 301 , 445 A.2d 901 (1982). Joinder of offenses is, however, not permissible if it will result in `substantial injustice' to the defendant. State v. Boscarino , 204 Conn. 714 , 721 , 529 A.2d 1260 (1987), quoting State v. King , supra , 302; see State v. Schroff, supra ; State v. Rodgers , 198 Conn. 53 , 65 , 502 A.2d 360 (1985); A. Spinella, Connecticut Criminal Procedure (1985) p. 415, citing State v. Silver , 139 Conn. 234 , 240 , 93 A.2d 154 (1952).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) where the facts offered may unduly arouse the jury's emotions, hostility or sympathy, (2) where the proof and answering evidence it provokes may create a side issue that will unduly, distract the jury from the main issues, (3) where the evidence offered and the counterproof will consume an undue amount of time, and (4) where the defendant, having no reasonable ground to anticipate the evidence, is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it.”
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.