178 Ga. App. 534 - Hogan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 528 So. 2d 1159 - Ex Parte State (1988), 215 Ga. App. 102 - Ellerbee v. State (1994)
2 federal appellate · 40 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 State v. Estevez · Lester v. State · 175 Ga. App. 463 - Peters v. State · Cunningham v. State · Cargile v. State
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The commission of the crime of DUI by violating OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1), ... or (a) (3) may include as an element of proof thereof, those presumptions or inferences which are established by OCGA § 40-6-392 (b) (1), (b) (2), or (b) (3).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while: "(1) There is 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood; "(2) Under the influence of alcohol;"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The State contends that the disjunctive subsections (a)(1) and (a)(4) of this single Code section establish two different offenses, and that, for this reason, appellant will not be reprosecuted for the same crime. There is authority for this construction of OCGA § 40-6-391. In Peters v. State , 175 Ga. App. 463 , 333 S.E.2d 436 (1985) and Atkins v. State , 175 Ga. App. 470 , 333 S.E.2d 441 (1985), this court held that subsections (a)(1) and (a)(4) of the statute establish different crimes. However, our Supreme Court has clearly held otherwise. 'Subsection (a)(4) simply sets out an alternative method of proving the crime established by the DUI statute. ' (Emphasis supplied.) Lester v. State , 253 Ga. 235 , 238 , 320 S.E.2d 142 (1984). See also Melton v. State , 175 Ga. App. 472 , 473 , 333 S.E.2d 682 (1985). Accordingly, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding that OCGA § 40-6-391 establishes the one crime and that subsections (a)(1) and (a)(4) merely set out two different methods of proving the same crime, Peters and Atkins and any similar cases are hereby overruled."”
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.