State v. Dacey’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA (1983), State v. Lombard (1985)
52 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 Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Tot v. United States · Barnes v. United States
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In any criminal prosecution of driving a vehicle while under the influence of or affected by the use of intoxicating liquor, the amount of alcohol in the defendant's blood at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the defendant's blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substances shall give rise to the following presumptions: "If there was at the time of the offense 0.05 percent or less by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, it should be presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor. "If there was at that time in excess of 0.05 percent but less than 0.10 percent by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, such fact shall not give rise to any presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but such fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. "If there was at that time 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, it shall be presumed that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. "This presumption is not binding upon the jury even though the evidence of the test is unrefuted by the defendant. It is for the jury to determine what weight will be accorded the presumption, keeping in mind that the state at all times must sustain the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood or breath at the time alleged . . . shall give rise to the following presumptions: (1) If there was at that time 0.05 per cent or less by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood or breath, it shall be presumed that the person was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] mandatory presumption shifts to the party against whom it operates either the burden of producing evidence or. the burden of persuasion, and if that party fails to satisfy this burden, the trier of fact must accept the presumed fact provided it finds the basic fact. On the other hand, a permissive presumption—more commonly described as a permissive inference—shifts no burden to the opposing party, but merely allows the trier of fact to find the inferred fact from the basic fact.”
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.