State v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Mhoon (1994), Maso v. State of New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department (2004)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 state decisions
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 United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms · Penn v. Parke State Bank · 51 Cal. 3d 335 - Lucido v. Superior Court · 32 Cal. 3d 468 - People v. Sims
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the law enforcement officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; (2) whether the person was arrested; (3) whether this hearing is held no later than ninety days after notice of revocation; and either (4)(a) whether the person refused to submit to a test upon request of the law enforcement officer; and (b) whether the law enforcement officer advised that the failure to submit to a test could result in revocation of the person's privilege to drive; or (5)(a) whether the chemical tests were administered pursuant to the provisions of the Implied Consent Act [66-8-105 to 66-8-112 NMSA 1978]; and (b) the test results indicated a blood alcohol content of one-tenth of one percent or more by weight if the person is eighteen years of age or older or a blood alcohol content of five one-hundredths of one percent or more by weight if the person is less than eighteen years of age.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Suazo · State v. Suazo“the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must be the same party or be in privity with the party to the original action; the subject matter of the cause of action in the two suits must be different; the ultimate facts or issues must have been actually litigated; and, the issue must have been necessarily determined.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f every license revocation hearing carries with it potential collateral estoppel impact on a subsequent criminal action, the state may feel compelled to intervene in every administrative action to effectively protect its interests in some future criminal proceeding. The net effect would be to slow down what should be a summary administrative proceeding designed to handle license revocation matters quickly. [Citations omitted.] In addition, we agree with those courts that recognize that the integrity of our judicial system requires adjudications of criminal guilt or innocence to be made in a judicial setting, not in an administrative hearing.”
2 later decisions 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.