State v. Taupier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n determining the contours of the protections provided by our state constitution, we employ a multifactor approach that we first adopted in [ State v. Geisler , 222 Conn. 672 , 685, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992) ]. The factors that we consider are (1) the text of the relevant constitutional provisions; (2) related Connecticut precedents; (3) persuasive federal precedents; (4) persuasive precedents of other state courts; (5) historical insights into * the intent of [the] constitutional [framers]; and (6) contemporary understandings of applicable economic and sociological norms [otherwise described as public policies].”

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

2. “nothing in Black itself suggests that the [C]ourt intended to overrule the preexisting consensus among the federal circuit courts of appeals that threatening speech may be punished under the [F]irst [A]mendment when a reasonable person would interpret the speech as a serious threat.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kansas v. Boettger

3. “[T]he plurality in Black was focused more on the Virginia cross burning statute's failure to differentiate between different levels of intent than on the specific mens rea that is constitutionally required before a person may be punished for threatening speech.”

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