State v. Cram’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably Rochin v. People of California (1952), Breithaupt v. Abram (1957)
41 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Agnello v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) to submit his body to examination for the purpose of discovering or recording his corporal features and other identifying characteristics, or his physical or mental condition, or "(b) to furnish or to permit the taking of samples of body fluids or substances for analysis."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Berg · State v. Vondehn“"The constitutions of all the states of the Union, with the exception of New Jersey and Iowa, contain provisions against self-incrimination. There is a variation of wording in these constitutional clauses. The protection is from `testifying', from `furnishing evidence', or from `being a witness'. This difference in phrasing has not been considered important. What the framers of the various constitutions sought to accomplish was to place `beyond the reach of ordinary legislative alteration' the privilege against self-incrimination `as already in the common law.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vondehn · State v. Fish“"Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to ORS 483.634 to 483.646, to a chemical test of his breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance * * *." ORS 483.634(1). "If a person under arrest for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (2) of ORS 483.992 or of a municipal ordinance, refuses the request of a police officer to submit to a chemical test of his breath as provided in subsection (1) of this section * * * no test shall be given, but the police officer shall prepare a sworn report of the refusal and cause it to be delivered to the division * * *." ORS 483.634(2). (Emphasis supplied.) "If a person under arrest refuses to submit to a chemical test of his breath under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section or refuses to consent to chemical tests as provided by ORS 483.636, evidence of his refusal shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle on the highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. " ORS 483.634(3). (Emphasis supplied.) "Nothing in ORS 483.634 is intended to, in lieu of a request for and adm”
1 later decision 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.