State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A trial court may entertain a motion in limine made by either party regarding the admission or exclusion of anticipated evidence.... The judicial authority may grant the relief sought in the motion or such other relief as it may deem appropriate, may deny the motion with or without prejudice to its later renewal , or may reserve decision thereon until a later time in the proceeding. Practice Book § 42-15. This court has said that [t]he motion in limine ... has generally been used in Connecticut courts to invoke a trial judge's inherent discretionary powers to control proceedings, exclude evidence, and prevent occurrences that might unnecessarily prejudice the right of any party to a fair trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 814 - State v. Patel

2. “[t]he court properly [allowed] the state to present evidence of the defendant's flight even if the state failed to introduce direct or inferential evidence that the defendant knew that he was wanted by the police”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 623 - State v. Jackson

3. “the state was not required to show that the defendant had knowledge that the police were actively looking for him for the evidence of flight to be introduced to the jury to infer consciousness of guilt”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Conn. App. 623 - State v. Jackson