Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 Haw. App. 44 - State v. Boehmer

1 Haw. App. 44 - State v. Boehmer’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
12
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably State v. Burling (1987), Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lytle (2003)

32 state decisions — followed in 12 states

1301980199020002010decided

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. Smith · State v. Cuevas · State v. Bjornsen · State v. Rackle

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

  1. ““Special Instruction “Ladies and Gentlemen, the Court has ruled, based upon legal arguments made outside your presence, that the in-toxilyzer test results of .10% in this case, normally, the concentration level of alcohol in the blood by weight which by statute gives rise to the presumption that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, shall not give rise to the presumption in this case because the margin of error of the intoxilyzer instrument utilized to measure the concentration by weight of alcohol in Mr. Prestier’s blood is such that it, the margin of error, could put Mr. Prestier’s actual blood alcohol concentration below the level necessary for the statutory presumption to be applicable in this case. “Thus, the intoxilyzer result in this case, normally sufficient to give rise to the statutory presumption, shall not give rise to any presumption that the Defendant was or was not under the influence of alcohol but such facts may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or lack of guilt of the Defendant.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.