State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
March 2009
most recently cited
40 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Mincey v. Arizona · United Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · State v. Boscarino
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Reasonable and CT Page 13247 articulable suspicion is an objective standard that focuses not on the actual state of mind of the police officer, but on whether a reasonable person, having the information available to and known by the police, would have had that level of suspicion. . . . The police officer's decision . . . must be based on more than a hunch or speculation. . . . In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“claim is raised. Second, we consider the defendant's claims that the allegations of the violent attacks in each of the three cases were so brutal and shocking that the court abused its discretion in consolidating the cases. State v. Jennings , [ 216 Conn. 647 , 583 A.2d 915 (1990)], cites both Boscarino and [ State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78 , 554 A.2d 686 , cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912 , 109 S.Ct. 3230 , 106 L.Ed.2d 579 (1989)], to reiterate that when both crimes charged can be characterized as violent, the test becomes whether the facts of one are”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“each of the three cases had discrete, easily distinguishable factual scenarios. As the state points out, the incidents took place on different dates, at different locations and involved different victims. Furthermore, the state presented the evidence in a manner unique to each case to avoid `spilling over' of the evidence as much as possible.”
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.