State v. Conn’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2020
2 district · 21 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 Johnson v. United States · Durham v. United States · Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc. · Carter v. United States · Connecticut Mut Life Ins Co v. Lathrop
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Test — In general. — A defendant is not criminally responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of that conduct, the defendant, because of a mental disorder or mental retardation, lacks substantial capacity: (1) To appreciate the criminality of that conduct; or (2) To conform that conduct to the requirements of law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bricker““[an expert] would not be testifying as to his observation of such acts, but at a time perhaps long after the relevant event would be interviewing an individual, administering tests to him, and from this examination then positing his view on the ultimate issue of sanity as of the time of the alleged crime.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bricker
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.