In re Williamson’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2004
10 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 Schmerber v. State of California · Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · City of Westerville v. Cunningham · State v. Muzzy · Marbut v. Motor Vehicle Department of Highway Commission
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Consequently, the court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider what it conceives to be the basic issue which is, ‘Does that part of Article I, Section 16, Ohio Constitution, reading, “All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputa tion, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay. * * *” permit the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to suspend a driver’s license for sis months for refusing, while such driver’s faculties are allegedly impaired, to submit to a chemical test for ascertaining the level of alcohol in body fluids, when, upon the first occasion thereafter when his faculties are not impaired and he has the benefit of sober reflection or the assistance of counsel, he pleads “guilty” to a properly laid charge of the offense for which he was arrested?’ This court answers this question, ‘No,’ for reasons hereinafter set out.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re of Noneman““It is a rule of interpretation, of universal application, that a law is to be so construed as to carry out the intention of the maker, and that to ascertain that intention, not merely is the language of the law, to be looked to, but also the subject-matter to which it relates, the evil provided against, and the attending circumstances and understanding, at the time the law was framed.” (Emphasis sic.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘In the interpretation of a statute, the manifest reason and intention of the law should prevail, although at variance with the literal import of the language employed.’ ” In re Williamson (1969), 18 Ohio Misc. 67, 74 , 47 O.O. 2d 125, 129, 246 N.E. 2d 618, 623 (quoting Slater v. Cave [1853], 3 Ohio St. 80 , syllabus).”
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.