State v. Lima’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature.... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply.... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § 1-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Trinity Christian Sch. v. Comm'n on Human Rights

2. “inquire directly of the defendant as to whether he has spoken with counsel about the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty before the court accepts the defendant's guilty plea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 337 - State v. Brown

3. “18 DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C. , 316 Conn. 790 , 803-804, 114 A.3d 1181 (2015) ; see also State v. Whiteman , 204 Conn. 98 , 103, 526 A.2d 869 (1987) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Trinity Christian Sch. v. Comm'n on Human Rights