State v. Hinton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

266 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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our holding is consistent with the approach taken by other jurisdictions. 'When a defendant contemplates or designs the death of another, the purpose of deterrence is better served by holding that defendant responsible for the knowing or purposeful murder of the unintended as well as the intended victim .'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ochoa v. State · Harrison v. State

2. “`[i]n construing a statute, common sense must be used and courts will assume that the legislature intended to accomplish a reasonable and rational result.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sostre, No. Hhd-Cr99-0165989-T (Dec. 19, 2001) · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12121 - Pastore v. Mancini, No. Cv 940368943 (Oct. 17, 1995)

3. “The clear meaning of the statute leads to the result that, when a person engages in conduct with the intent to kill someone, there can be a separate count of murder for every person actually killed by the conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lloyd v. United States · 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5515 - State v. Courchesne, No. Cr4-273002 (May 19, 1999)