State v. Van Eck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Any motor vehicle eligible for commercial registration as defined in section 14-1, unless exempted under the provisions of section 14-34, shall be registered in this state if: (1) It is most frequently garaged in this state, or, if not garaged at any fixed location, most frequently leaves from and returns to one or more points within this state in the normal course of operations. In the case of an owner-operator of the vehicle in question, registration hereunder shall be required only if the owner-operator has, within this state, one or more employees, agents or representatives engaged in activities directly related to the physical movement of the vehicle, or if the owner-operator is himself engaged in such activities; ... (c) Residence or domicile of the owner, lessor or lessee of the motor vehicle, or the place where the owner, lessor or lessee is incorporated or organized, shall not be a factor in determining the necessity for registration of the vehicle in this state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 281 F. Supp. 2d 390 - Gagne v. DeMarco

2. “[internal quotation marks omitted] ). Under these circumstances, the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant stabbed the victim. B The defendant argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that he attempted to induce Wright to testify falsely by sending her a letter concerning his pending charges for assault in the first degree. Specifically, he argues that the letter did not ask, request, or suggest that she testify falsely. According to the defendant,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 40 - State v. Jackson

3. “[I]t is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of pro se litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the pro se party. . . . Although we allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 12216 - Bridgeport Hospital v. Estate of Johnson, No. Cv00 0378634s (Sep. 11, 2002)