Commonwealth v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Transportation Cabinet · Commonwealth v. Alano · Commonwealth v. Harrelson · 189 Ga. App. 800 - State v. Buffington · Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(6) Only a physician, registered nurse, phlebotomist, nledical technician, or medical technologist not otherwise prohibited by law can withdraw any blood of any person submitting to a test under this section; and' (7) After the person has submitted to all alcohol concentration tests and substance tests requested by the officer, the person tested shall be permitted to have a person listed in subsection (6) of this section of his or her own choosing administer a test or tests in addition to any tests administered at the direction of the peace officer. Tests conducted under this section shall be conducted within a reasonable length of time. Provided, however, the nonavailability of the person chosen to administer a test or tests in addition to those administered at the direction of the peace officer within a reasonable time shall not be' grounds for rendering inadmissible as evidence the results of the test or tests administered at the, direction of the peace officer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“During the period immediately preceding the administration of any test, the person shall be afforded an opportunity of at least ten (10) minutes but not more than fifteen (15) minutes to attempt to contact and communicate with an attorney and shall be informed of this right. Inability to communicate with an attorney during this period shall not be deemed to relieve the person of his obligation to submit to the tests and the penalties specified by KRS 189A.010 and 189A.107 shall remain applicable to the person upon refusal. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to create a right to have an attorney present during the administration of the tests, but the person’s attorney may be present if the attorney can physically appear at the location where the test is to be administered within the time period established in this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) [Availability of or access to funds or resources to pay for the requested test; (2) a protracted delay in the giving of the test if the officer complies with the accused’s requést; (3) availability of police time and other resources; (4) location of requested facilities, e.g., the hospital to which the accused1 wants to be taken is-nearby but in- a different jurisdiction; [and] (5) opportunity and ability of accused to make arrangements personally for the testing.”
1 later decision 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.