Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 Pa. Commw. 296 - Doolin v. Commonwealth

113 Pa. Commw. 296 - Doolin v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 2002
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 2002

4 state decisions

20198819902000decided

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 Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Bartle · 105 Pa. Commw. 501 - Cunningham v. Commonwealth · 107 Pa. Commw. 20 - Wenger v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Landau · Commonwealth v. Schauer

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.

  1. “(a) General Rule. — Any person who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have given consent to one or more chemical tests of breath, blood or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of blood or the presence of a controlled substance if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving, operating or in actual physical control of the movement of a motor vehicle: (1) while under the influence of alcohol.... (b) Suspension for refosal.— (1) If any person placed under arrest for a violation of section 3731 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of the person for a period of 12 months. (2) It shall be the duty of the police officer to inform the person that the person's operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing.”
    3 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.