State v. Sivri’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably State v. Brown (2001), New London Federal Savings Bank v. Tucciarone (1998)
2 district · 41 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 Smith v. Phillips · State v. Golding · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish · State v. Williams
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendant’s [claim] that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the specific intent to cause the death of the victim ... was considered by the Supreme Court in Sivri I . On less evidence than was presented in the case now before us, the Supreme Court held that “[a]lthough the evidence certainly did not mandate an inference of an intent to kill, we conclude that [all of the permissible inferences] taken together ... [reasonably support] the inference of an intent to kill that the jury drew.” Two justices dissented from that holding, and the defendant asks us to adopt the dissenting view. This would require us to overrule the majority, which we are powerless to do. This court will not reexamine or reevaluate Supreme Court precedent. Because we are bound by the majority decision in Sivri I , independent analysis by this court on the intent issue would be a futile endeavor. 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[e]vidence indicating that an accused possessed an article with which the particular crime charged may have been accomplished is generally relevant to show that the accused had the means to commit the crime.... The state does not have to connect a weapon directly to the defendant and the crime. It is necessary only that the weapon be suitable for the commission of the offense .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Where a trial court’s action does not result in any manifest injustice, a defendant’s claim under the plain error doctrine does not warrant review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sivri, 46 Conn. App. 578, 590 , 700 A.2d 96 , cert, denied, 243 Conn. 938 , 702 A.2d 644 (1997).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Delgado
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.