State v. Saucier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

230 state decisions

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

1. “We review the trial court's decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law ... for an abuse of discretion.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Conn. App. 61 - R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. · 166 Conn. App. 142 - State v. Leniart

2. “[t]o the extent [that] a trial court's [ruling regarding] admission of evidence is based on an interpretation of the [Connecticut] Code of Evidence, our standard of review is plenary. For example, whether a challenged statement properly may be classified as hearsay and whether a hearsay exception properly is identified are legal questions demanding plenary review. They require determinations about which reasonable minds may not differ; there is no judgment call by the trial court, and the trial court has no discretion to admit hearsay in the absence of a provision providing for its admissibility.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Conn. App. 61 - R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. · 180 Conn. App. 624 - State v. Swilling

3. “is it vested with the discretion to admit or to bar the evidence based upon relevancy, prejudice, or other legally appropriate grounds related to the rule of evidence under which admission is being sought.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Conn. App. 624 - State v. Swilling · 176 Conn. App. 518 - State v. Pugh