Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 252 CONN 579 - State v. Ehlers

State v. Ehlers’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably City of Waterbury v. Town of Washington (2002), State v. Sorabella (2006)

54 state decisions

420200020102020decided

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. § 2252

Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Dombrowski v. Pfister · New York v. Ferber · United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. · Osborne v. Ohio

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

  1. “It is well settled that statutory construction involves a reasoned search for the legislature's intent, focusing on the language of the statute, [and] its legislative history, including the purpose and policies behind its enactment . . . [Courts] are required to construe a statute in a manner that will not thwart [the legislature's] intended purpose or lead to absurd results. . . . [Courts] must avoid a construction that fails to attain a rational and sensible result that bears directly on the purpose the legislature sought to achieve . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We are required to construe a statute in a manner that will not thwart [the legislature's] intended purpose or lead to absurd results. . . . We must avoid a construction that fails to attain a rational and sensible result that bears directly on the purpose the legislature sought to achieve. . . . If there are two possible interpretations of a statute, we will adopt the more reasonable construction over one that is unreasonable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “to ascertain the intent of the legislature and to construe the statute in a manner that effectuates that intent. . . . In seeking to discern that intent, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative CT Page 17011 policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation.”
    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.