State v. Horrocks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Our Supreme Court] has previously enumerated situations in which the potential prejudicial effect of relevant evidence would counsel its exclusion. Evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial: (1) where it may unnecessarily arouse the jury's emotions, hostility or sympathy; (2) where it may create distracting side issues; (3) where the evidence and counterproof will consume an inordinate amount of time; and (4) where one party is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 5740 - Pierce v. Fales, No. Cv-99-0088423 S (May 3, 2002)

2. “the preclusion of any cross-examination of the victim concerning her relationship with [the state's investigating detective] improperly prohibited inquiry into a legitimate area of relevant concern”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Conn. App. 386 - State v. Erick L.