State v. Woolery’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably 133 S. Ct. 1552 - Missouri v. McNeely (2013), Missouri v. McNeely (2013)
55 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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Schmerber v. State of California · Sedillo v. United States · 264 Cal. App. 2d 788 - Bush v. Bright · 137 Wis. 2d 39 - State v. Zielke
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]efusal as contemplated by the statute is something other than withholding of consent because consent is legally implied. It is a refusal to comply with the consent which has already been given as a condition of a license to drive. The purpose of a warning of license suspension following a refusal ... is to overcome an unsanetioned refusal by threat instead of force. It is not to reinstate a right to choice, but rather to nonforcibly enforce the driver’s previous implied consent.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Green · State v. Stueck“[T]he destruction of the evidence by metabolism in the blood provides an inherent exigency which justifies the warrantless search.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robinson · State v. Madden“Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of the motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given his consent to evidentiary testing for concentration of alcohol____provided that such testing is administered at the request of a peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe that the person has been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of [Idaho’s DUI statutes].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harmon
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.