State v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This court has stated that . . . § 53a-167a . . . defines interfering to include obstruction, resistance, hindrance or endangerment. . . . By using those words it is apparent that the legislature intended to prohibit any act which would amount to meddling in or hampering the activities of the police in the performance of their duties. . . . In enacting § 53a-167a, the legislature sought to prohibit behavior that hampers the activities of the police in the performance of their duties. . . . The statute's purpose is to ensure orderly compliance with the police during the performance of their duties; any act intended to thwart this purpose violates the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Conn. App. 349 - State v. Silva

2. “Intent is generally proven by circumstantial evidence because direct evidence of the accused's state of mind is rarely available. . . . Therefore, intent is often inferred from conduct . . . and from the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence and the rational inference drawn therefrom.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Conn. App. 349 - State v. Silva

3. “(Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hampton, 66 Conn.App. 357, 375 , 784 A.2d 444 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 992 (2001).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Conn. App. 349 - State v. Silva