173 Wis. 2d 529 - State v. Bohling’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably 133 S. Ct. 1552 - Missouri v. McNeely (2013), Missouri v. McNeely (2013)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Payton v. New York · Schmerber v. State of California · Carnegie v. United States · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · Welsh v. Wisconsin
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] warrantless blood sample taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer is permissible under the following circumstances: (1) the blood draw is taken to obtain evidence of intoxication from a person lawfully arrested for a drunk-driving related violation or crime, (2) there is a clear indication that the blood draw will produce evidence of intoxication, (3) the method used to take the blood sample is a reasonable one and performed in a reasonable manner, and (4) the arrestee presents no reasonable objection to the blood draw.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“explained that probable cause to arrest for a drunk-driving related violation or crime 'substitutes for the predicate act of lawful arrest' under the first factor.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Wlhether the fact that the percentage of alcohol in a person's blood stream rapidly diminishes after drinking stops alone constitutes a sufficient exigency [under the relevant constitutional provisions] to justify a warrant-less blood draw under the following circumstances: (1) the blood draw is taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer from a person lawfully arrested for a drunk-driving related violation or crime, and (2) there is a clear indication that the blood draw will produce evidence of intoxication.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Krajewski · State v. Faust
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.