State v. Pollander’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Lussier (2000), In Re Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (2001)
2 district · 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 Dowling v. United States · MacKey v. Montrym · Emich Motors Corporation v. General Motors Corporation · Trepanier v. Getting Organized, Inc. · Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Board
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“necessarily and essentially determined in a prior action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) preclusion is asserted against one who was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier action; (2) the issue was resolved by a final judgment on the merits; (3) the issue is the same as the one raised in the later action; (4) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action; and (5) applying preclusion in the later action is fair.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) whether the law enforcement officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating, attempting to operate or in actual physical control of a vehicle in violation of section 1201 of this title; (2) whether at the time of the request for the evidentiary test the officer informed the person of the person’s rights and the consequences of taking and refusing the test . . .; (3) whether the person refused to permit the test; (4) whether the test was taken and the test results indicated that the person’s alcohol concentration was 0.08 or more at the time of operation] . . ., whether the testing methods used were valid and reliable and whether the test results were accurate and accurately evaluated . . .; (5) whether the requirements of section 1202 of this title [consent to taking of tests to determine blood alcohol content] were complied with.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Lussier
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.