Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 Idaho 181 - State v. Carr

State v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
4
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2020

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

701995200020102020decided

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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Chambers v. Mississippi · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz.

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he person contacted by the arrestee could arrange for a photograph to be taken to demonstrate that the arrestee's eyes were not bloodshot but were clear and white; prepare a tape recording to demonstrate that the arrestee had clear speech; videotape the arrestee to show that he or she has balance and is able to walk in a straight line; perform a gaze nystagmus test to show smooth eye pursuit at all angles; or simply serve as a witness who observed the aforementioned characteristics of sobriety.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[b]y denying [her] access to a telephone ... after her arrest for DUI, the State denied her the means by which she could establish her defense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “First, a telephone call allows an arrestee to contact an attorney almost immediately. This often will be of paramount importance in marshalling evidence in defense of the charged offense. In this case, Carlo was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Evidence (in the form of her blood alcohol content) of whether or not she had committed the crime of which she was accused dissipated as the hours wore on, and”
    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.