Burns v. Barrett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is the court's duty to carry out the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute it has enacted and to make the remedy it has provided an effective and efficient means of dealing with violations of the act and regulations properly promulgated under its authority." Conservation Commission v. Price, supra, 430. This does not mean that a court is "mechanically obligated to grant an injunction for every violation of law." Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 , 102 S.Ct. 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). A judge retains a reasonable discretion to decide whether injunctive relief is appropriate even though it is authorized by statute.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gourlay v. Georgetown Trust, No. Cv 960150535s (Jun. 19, 1996) · 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5245 - Clinton Inland Wetland Commission v. Gerl, No. 63719 (Jun. 5, 1992)

2. “it may be presumed that there is no adequate legal remedy, because the legislature would not have provided the additional remedies if they were not needed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gourlay v. Georgetown Trust, No. Cv 960150535s (Jun. 19, 1996) · 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1414 - D. L. Ryan Cos. v. Sierra Comm. Grp., No. Cv95 032 62 39 S (Feb. 2, 1996)

3. “We construe the regulation ... to include ... those [signs] relating to noncommercial as well as commercial activities located on the premises, such as those of a hospital, church, club, political organization or other noncommercial institution. For example, if some organization of veterans were located on the premises where the defendant has placed his sign concerning Vietnam veterans, the requisite relationship between the sign and activities conducted on the premises would exist. Such a noncommercial message could ... be sponsored by a business conducted on the site of the sign for the purpose of advertising the business, since many advertisements contain statements of public interest not directly related to the wares sold by the sponsor but intended to attract attention or create good will for its benefit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kuchta v. Arisian