35 Conn. App. 781 - State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. Randolph (2007), State v. Stevenson (1999)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Manson v. Brathwaite · United Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Jones v. Farm Credit Administration · Corn Belt Bank v. Armstrong
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“base it on C. McCormick, Evidence (3d Ed. 1984) 190, p. 560. But, the phrase is not a straight-jacket. In State v. King , 35 Conn. App. 781 , 790-91 , 647 A.2d 25 (1994), affirmed, 235 Conn. 402 , 665 A.2d 897 (1995), Appellate Court held: We agree with the trial court's conclusion that joinder was proper because evidence relating to each case could have been used in the others to show the identity of the defendant or to show a common scheme. To be relevant on the issue of identity or common scheme, the other crime charged must be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“State v. Ibraimov , 187 Conn. 348 , 354 , 446 A.2d 382 (1982). The similarities connecting the crimes need not be so unique as to constitute”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“sufficiently unique to warrant a reasonable inference that the person who performed one misdeed also did the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.