Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 W. Va. 337 - State v. Hood

155 W. Va. 337 - State v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
8
states following
April 2013
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably 192 W. Va. 345 - Mildred L.M. v. John O.F. (1994), State v. Byers (1976)

41 state decisions

17019711980199020002010decided

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 56 Wash. 2d 846 - State v. Baker · Otte v. State · State, City of St. Louis Park v. Quinn · Pruitt v. State · 64 N.J. Super. 262 - State v. Miller

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

  1. “(1) That the testing device or equipment was in proper working order; (2) that the person giving and interpreting the test was properly qualified; (3) that the test was properly conducted; and (4) that there was compliance with any statutory requirements. 155 W.Va. at 342 , 184 S.E.2d at 337 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[b]efore the result of a Breathalyzer test for blood alcohol administered pursuant to Code, 17C-5A-1 et seq., as amended, is admissible into evidence in a trial for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a proper foundation must be laid for the admission of such evidence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Any person who drives a motor vehicle upon the public streets or highways of this State shall be deemed to have given his consent by the operation thereof, ... to a chemical test of either his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood whenever he shall be lawfully arrested by a law-enforcement officer as hereinafter defined for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon the public streets or highways of this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and shall be administered at the direction of the arresting law-enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle upon the public streets or highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.””
    2 later decisions 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.