State v. Mechler’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
77 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Montgomery v. State · Guzman v. State · Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · 1993-1 v. Petruzzi's Iga Supermarkets Inc · Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb Litigation Brown v. Monsanto Company
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Rule 403 recognizes that relevance alone does not ensure admissibility. A cost/benefit analysis must often be employed. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is not worth the problems that its admission may cause. The issue is whether the search for truth will be helped or hindered by the interjection of distracting, confusing, or emotionally charged evidence. In making this determination, the [trial] court must assess the probative value of the proferred item as well as the harm ful consequences specified in Rule 408 that might flow from its admission.” J. McLaughlin, et al., Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 403.02[l][a] at 403-6 (2006 rev.) (discussing Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence). 7”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. State · Warren v. State“(1) the degree to which the test result exceeds the legal limit of 0.08% and (2) the amount of time elapsed between driving and the taking of the test. The higher the test result and the shorter the time between driving and testing, the more likely the logical inference is that the defendant had a BAC level at or above 0.08% at the time of driving.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kirsch v. State · Kirsch v. State“intoxilyzer results are evidence of intoxication under both intoxication definitions and the proof under each definition is not mutually exclusive ... clearly, a test showing that blood had a .10 alcohol concentration is probative evidence of a loss of faculties. Conversely, evidence of his failure to pass field sobriety tests immediately after driving his vehicle tends to make it more probable that the failed blood test or breath test taken an hour later accurately reflect the driver's condition at the time of the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kirsch v. State
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.