Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 CONNAPP 136 - State v. Wright

State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rhode Island v. Innis

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

  1. ““[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: What was your intention in exhibit A when it says— “[The Defendants’ Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor, back to intentions. “The Court: Yeah, sustained. “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: It’s avague statement, Your Honor, in here. She should (indiscernible) to explain. “The Court: Is there — I’m ruling on what’s factually determined, what’s written, what’s stated. [Are] there any further questions of the witness? “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Were you able to agree with [Valencia] as to her paying use and occupancy for any dates after July 31? “[Deans]: No. “[The Defendants’ Counsel]: Your Honor, I’m going to object. The evidence— “[Deans]: No, I was — I did not . . . “[The Defendants’ Counsel]: Your Honor, my objection is that this is going over issues that have already been stipulated to. . . . “The Court: [I]t is not a matter of whether there was an agreement. The law is very clear that the issue before this court this afternoon is whether the acts or the writings of a landlord rendered to what was previously an effective notice to quit equivocal and, therefore, caused the action to be placed in jeopardy. So agreements have nothing to do with it. Motivation has nothing to do with it. Reasons have nothing to do with it. It’s acts of the parties determined by the facts.” “The appropriate standard of review in cases concerning the admissibility of evidence is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. ... It is generally accepted that a trial cou”
    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.