150 Ill. App. 3d 283 - People v. Kissel’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 167 Ill. App. 3d 313 - People v. Wingren (1988), 228 Ill. App. 3d 277 - People v. Ayres (1992)
33 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 63 Ill. 2d 128 - First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. · 33 Ill. App. 3d 736 - People v. Guynn · 101 Ill. 2d 309 - People v. Pettit · 37 Ill. App. 3d 1010 - People v. Jensen · 113 Ill. App. 3d 853 - People v. Frye
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The legislature has determined that only those who drive or are in actual control of a vehicle 'upon the public highways' of the State shall be deemed to have consented to chemical testing. As it is undisputed in the present cases that defendants were observed driving their vehicles only upon privately-owned parking lots we conclude they were not subject to the provisions of the implied consent statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The State also contends that even should it be determined that the implied consent statute was inapplicable at the time of the arrests of defendants Charles Kissel and James Slezak that the trial court erred in suppressing the results of Kissel's breathalyzer test and the statements made by Slezak in refusing to submit to testing when requested by the *Page 250 officer to do so. The State argues that the court should have held an evidentiary hearing as to the voluntariness of Kissel's consent to take the test and Siezak's statements. "We agree. It is apparent the trial court considered only whether the implied consent statute was applicable and, after determining it was not, suppressed the evidence of the results of Kissel's breathalyzer test and Slezak's statements on that basis without considering evidence directed to the issue of the voluntariness of the consent or the statements. The record provided relating to the arguments of counsel as to these matters is not sufficient to permit us to resolve those issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this State shall be deemed to have given consent *** to a chemical test or tests of blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol, other drug, or combination thereof content of such person’s blood if arrested, as evidenced by the issuance of a Uniform Traffic Ticket, for any offense as defined in Section 11— 501 or a similar provision of a local ordinance.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 95½, par. 11-501.1(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.