State v. Buhl’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

135 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We repeatedly have stated that [w]e are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief.... Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.... [F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal ... the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs.... The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 201 - Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. · 189 Conn. App. 825 - Nahlawi v. Nahlawi

2. “[e]xpert opinions concerning scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge may be necessary to assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.... Although expert testimony may be helpful in many instances, it is required only when the question involved goes beyond the field of ordinary knowledge and experience of the trier of fact.... The trier of fact need not close its eyes to matters of common knowledge solely because the evidence includes no expert testimony on those matters.... Whether expert testimony is required in a particular case is determined on a case-by-case basis and its necessity is dependent on whether the issues are of sufficient complexity to warrant the use of the testimony as assistance to the ... court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Edwards · Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group

3. “[w]riting a compelling legal argument is a painstaking, time-consuming task. Good legal analysis is premised on knowing the controlling rules of law. An effective appellate advocate must apply the rules of law to the facts at hand by applying or distinguishing existing legal precedent .... To write a good brief and to comply with the rules of practice, counsel must state the rules of law, [and] provide citations to legal authority that support the claims made ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 201 - Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. · 191 Conn. App. 110 - Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc.