State v. Cote’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
20 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 6901 (Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992) · 42 U.S.C. § 6903 · 42 U.S.C. § 6925 · 42 U.S.C. § 6926 · 42 U.S.C. § 6928 · 42 U.S.C. § 6929
Relies on Oklahoma v. New Mexico · Licht v. Texas Commerce Bank · Suwannee Swifty Stores, Inc. v. Georgia Lottery Corp. · Marks v. United States · Hopkins v. Reeves
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is a means of assuring fairness to persons subject to the law by requiring penal statutes to give clear and unequivocal warning in language that people generally would understand, concerning actions that would expose them to liability for penalties and what the penalties would be ... [and] to protect the individual against arbitrary discretion by officials and judges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dudley“Had the legislature included a similar provision to apply to § 22a-181a, defining the pertinent terms consistent with, or by reference to, federal law, such action also would have expressed a clear intent to have the federal definitions control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]ur ultimate objective ... is to discern and effectuate the apparent intent of the legislature.”
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.