Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 CONN 639 - State v. Pieger

State v. Pieger’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp. (1998), State v. Kirsch (2003)

59 state decisions

3201997200020102020decided

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 Bearden v. Georgia · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · 10 Cal. 4th 1114 - People v. Carbajal · State v. Smith · United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez

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

  1. “"In this case, requiring the defendant to make a donation to the hospital that had provided most of the victim's treatment was more rehabilitative than requiring the defendant to pay a fine because the donation had a direct relationship to the accident and the injuries, thereby advancing the rehabilitative purpose of making the defendant accept his responsibility for the accident. Other jurisdictions have upheld conditions requiring monetary payments that were not explicitly authorized by statute when those conditions shared a nexus with the defendant's crime. . . . We conclude that as long as the condition requiring monetary payment shares a nexus with the defendant's crime, as in this case, it is reasonably related to rehabilitation." [Footnote omitted.] 240 Conn. 650 (1997).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In the present case the nexus shared by the defendant's crime and the imposed condition of making a donation is clear — the donation is to be made to the hospital where the victim of the crime was treated. In future cases, however, express findings supporting the requisite nexus would alleviate any concerns on the part of a reviewing court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[8] In Pieger , one of the cases on which the majority relies, the defendant was required, as a condition of his probation, to donate $2500 to the hospital in which the victim had been treated after being struck and seriously injured by the defendant's motor vehicle.”
    2 later decisions 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.