Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 Conn. App. 248 - State v. Felder

95 Conn. App. 248 - State v. Felder’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Hampton (2009), Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Department of Social Services (2008)

40 state decisions

300200620102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Golding · State v. Cruz · Egri v. Foisie · Codd v. Barrett · State v. Randall

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. “In this case, the state alleges that threatening or harassing the complainant was forbidden by the order, and you have the order. As far as what's the definition of a threat, use the same definition that I'm going to give you on threatening. As far as what's harassing, harassing is to trouble, worry, or torment ; that's the legal definition. Trouble, worry, or torment. A person acts intentionally with respect to conduct when his conscious objective is to engage in such conduct. That's general intent. In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that a court issued a standing criminal protective order against the defendant; and (2) the defendant violated a condition of that order; and in count two, we're talking about an allegation that he violated a prohibition in an order that required him not to threaten or harass the complainant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is ... constitutionally axiomatic that the jury be instructed on the essential elements of a crime charged.... A claim that the trial court failed to instruct the jury adequately on an essential element of the crime charged necessarily involves the defendant's due process rights and implicates the fairness of his trial.”
    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.