Benjamin v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 4 district · 71 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hen a statute is challenged on equal protection grounds, whether under the United States constitution or the Connecticut constitution, the reviewing court must first determine the standard by which the challenged statute's constitutional validity will be determined. If, in distinguishing between classes, the statute either intrudes on the exercise of a fundamental right or burdens a suspect class of persons, the court will apply a strict scrutiny standard wherein the state must demonstrate that the challenged statute is necessary to the achievement of a compelling state interest. . . . If the statute does not touch upon either a fundamental right or a suspect class, its classification need only be rationally related to some legitimate governmental purpose in order to withstand an equal protection challenge. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6685 - Abington Cons. v. Dpt. of Consumer Prot., No. Cv 00 0503420 S (May 22, 2001)

2. “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach . . .; (2) holdings and dicta of this court, and the Appellate Court . . .; (3) federal precedent . . .; (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . .; (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . .; and (6) economic/sociological considerations . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Concepcion, No. Cr 96159081 (Jun. 17, 1996)

3. “Under the requirements of due process of law mandated by our federal and state constitutions, a penal statute must be sufficiently definite to enable a person to know what conduct he must avoid. . . . [A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 7078 - Animal Rights Front v. Rocque, No. Cv97-0575920s (Jun. 2, 2000)