Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 CONN 418 - State v. Wright

State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Fagan (2006), State v. Chasity West (2005)

49 state decisions

300200520102020decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Pointer v. Texas · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Washington v. Texas

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

  1. “The defendant's sixth amendment right ... does not require the trial court to forgo completely restraints on the admissibility of evidence.... Generally, [a defendant] must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence ....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We nonetheless conclude that the defendant's right to counsel claim simply amounts to another impermissible collateral attack on the protective order that he was convicted of violating.... The fact that his claim is couched in constitutional principles does not render it exempt from the collateral bar rule. That doctrine applies not only when a defendant challenges an order on the basis of factual error but also when he contends that the order is invalid because its issuance does not comport with constitutional law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]f the defendant believed that the order did not comport with the statutory requirements of [General Statutes] § 46b-38c (e), he had two lawful remedies available to him. He could have: (1) sought to have the order modified or vacated by a judge of the Superior Court pursuant to Practice Book § 38-13 ; or (2) appealed the terms of the order to the Appellate Court in accordance with General Statutes § 54-63g.”
    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.