State v. Burroughs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our standard of review of a trial court's findings and conclusions in connection with a motion to suppress is well defined. A finding of fact will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record .... [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision .... We undertake a more probing factual review when a constitutional question hangs in the balance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Conn. App. 703 - State v. Castillo · State v. Davis

2. “We ... note that [we have] been inconsistent in articulating the test for reviewing whether a seizure has occurred, In one line of cases, we have stated that whether a seizure occurred is a question of fact, In other cases, we have distinguished between the trial court's findings of "historical" fact, which we do not overturn unless they are clearly erroneous, and the ultimate question of whether a seizure occurred, which is subject to a "serupulous independent review of the record to ensure that the trial court's determination was supported by substantial evidence." We now clarify that appellate review of whether a seizure occurred is a mixed question of law and fact, and when there is no dispute as to the underlying facts, as in the present case, or when the trial court's finding of historical facts is not clearly erroneous ..., it is the duty of the reviewing court to make an independent legal determination of whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed that he was not free to leave.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Meyer v. State

3. “When considering the validity of a [Terry] stop, our threshold inquiry is twofold.... First, we must determine at what point, if any ... the encounter between [the police officers] and the defendant constitute[d] an investigatory stop or seizure.... Next, [i]f we conclude that there was such a seizure, we must then determine whether [the police officers] possessed a reasonable and articulable suspicion [that the individual is engaged in criminal activity] at the time the seizure occurred.... In assessing whether the police officers possessed the requisite reasonable and articulable suspicion, we must consider whether, relying on the whole picture, the detaining officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. When reviewing the legality of a stop, a court must examine the specific information available to the * police officer at the time of the initial intrusion and any rational inferences to be derived therefrom.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Davis