Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 CONN 345 - State v. Tuchman

State v. Tuchman’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably In re Shane P. (2000), State v. Bletsch (2007)

31 state decisions

1801997200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Benton v. Maryland · Abney v. United States · United States v. Halper · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez

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

  1. “When determining whether our state constitution affords ... greater individual liberties than does its federal counterpart, we consider, to the extent applicable, six factors [the ` Geisler ' factors]: (1) the text of relevant constitutional provisions; (2) historical insights into the intent of our constitutional forebears; (3) related Connecticut precedents; (4) persuasive federal precedents; (5) persuasive precedents of other state courts; and (6) contemporary understandings of applicable economic and sociological norms.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the absence of an explicit constitutional double jeopardy provision strongly suggests that the incorporated common-law double jeopardy protection mirrors, rather than exceeds, the federal constitutional protection.”
    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.