McFadden v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
July 1989
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 280 Pa. Super. 20 - Commonwealth v. Benson · 68 Pa. Commw. 541 - Waigand v. Commonwealth · Ford v. Commonwealth · Schnitzer v. Commonwealth
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, when the arrestee responds to the request that he take the test with an inquiry regarding whether he may consult with someone before making a decision, the duty then arises in the officer to inform the arrestee that the Miranda right to counsel does not apply to the breathalyzer test. Hence, the instant case is distinguishable from O’Connell : Here, when McFadden inquired as to whether he could make a phone call, Officer Twist consented. Thus, if Officer Twist had not consented to McFadden’s request, then Officer Twist would have been required to advise McFadden that the Miranda right to counsel does not apply to the breathalyzer test. “Lastly, the trial court concluded, based upon the testimony of Officer Twist, that McFadden did make a knowing and conscious refusal to take the breathalyzer test.” McFadden, supra, (citation and footnote omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. PennDOT v. Snyder
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.