State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably State v. Romero (2004), State v. Kirsch (2003)
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 71 state decisions
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 State v. Golding · State v. Denby · Cranston Print Works Co. v. City of Cranston · State v. Miller · Moriarty v. Lippe
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.
“The fact that a person is under arrest does not require that person to submit to egregiously unlawful police conduct during the course of the arrest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining whether the officer was acting in the performance of (his/her) duties, you must consider another provision in our law that justifies the use of physical force by correction officers. That statute provides that an authorized official of a correctional institution or facility may, in order to maintain order and discipline, use such physical force as is reasonable and authorized by the rules and regulations of the department of correction. "If you find that the force used by the officer was not reasonable, you will find that < insert name of officer> was not acting within the performance of (his/her) official duties while attempting to (arrest/prevent the escape of) the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The rationale behind our Supreme Court's determination in Davis was based on the requirement that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was acting in the performance of his duties as an element of § 53a-167c and the fact that excessive or unreasonable physical force by the officer would place his actions outside the performance of his duties.... The defendant would be entitled to an acquittal if the state failed to prove that the use of force was within the performance of the officer's duties.”
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.