State v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “reasonable specificity, but need not be elaborately detailed. . . . Nor must the warrant enable authorities to minutely identify every item for which they are searching. . . . Thus, a description is valid if it is as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9802 - State v. Von Staats, No. Cr 93 0124286 (Sep. 27, 1994) · 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9806 - State v. Von Staats, No. Cr 93 0124285 (Sep. 27, 1994)

2. “A high degree of scrutiny is required when reviewing the particularity requirement of search warrants for documents.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9802 - State v. Von Staats, No. Cr 93 0124286 (Sep. 27, 1994) · 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9806 - State v. Von Staats, No. Cr 93 0124285 (Sep. 27, 1994)

3. “State v. Gagnon , 18 Conn. App. 694 , 709-10 , 561 A.2d 129 , cert. denied, 213 Conn. 805 , 567 A.2d 835 (1989). While the warrant must describe the objects of the search with”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thompson, No. Cr 18-95928 (Jul. 16, 1999)