34 Conn. Supp. 689 - State v. Anonymous’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The over breadth principle is not violated by the unrestricted scope of the messages which the statute may ban because it is the manner and means employed to communicate them which is the subject of the prohibition rather than their content. The statute is not flawed because a recital on the telephone of the most sublime prayer with the intention and effect of harassing the listener would fall within its ban as readily as the most scurrilous epithet. The prohibition is against purposeful harassment by means of a device readily susceptible to abuse as a constant trespasser upon our privacy.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Galloway v. State · 130 Md. App. 89 - Galloway v. State

2. ““A person is guilty of harassment when (3) with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mary Gormley v. Director, Connecticut State Department of Adult Probation · Gormley v. Director, Connecticut State Department of Probation