State v. Brean’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably South Dakota v. Neville (1983), State v. Badger (1982)
59 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Schmerber v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Doyle v. Ohio · State v. Welch · State v. Christman
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the present statute, however, the motorist’s refusal right is not absolute, but has been made expressly conditional — a change that is manifestly within the prerogative of the Legislature. We hold that the admission of refusal evidence, as expressly authorized by 23 V.S.A. § 1205(a), does not violate defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination; accordingly, there was no deprivation of defendant’s due process rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Neville · State v. Welch“The right to refuse to submit to a blood or breath test in Vermont is a creature of statute, 23 V.S.A. § 1205, and not the Federal or State Constitutions. Since the Vermont Legislature has deemed fit to grant suspected intoxicated drivers more “protection” than is constitutionally required, the proper question is not, as defendant suggests, whether refusal evidence is testimonial or communicative in nature and thereby protected by the cloak of the Fifth Amendment, but rather whether the Legislature possesses the power to place a condition upon the grant of a statutory right. We think it eminently clear that it does. Since the right to refuse to submit to the test is a matter of legislative grace or privilege ... the Legislature may properly condition the exercise of that right by providing that any refusal may be introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding.. ..”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Neville“we can find no prejudice from a review of the record.. .. The officer’s affidavit of probable cause set forth that the offense occurred in Vermont. Defendant obviously understood when and where the alleged offense took place. That defendant was not “surprised” by the amendment is evidenced, in part, by the fact that he made no motion for continuance at the time the motion to amend was granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Antillon
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.