State v. Martines’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · 121 Wash. 2d 22 - State v. Riley · 91 Wash. 2d 391 - State v. Fricks · 119 Wash. 2d 538 - State v. Perrone
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.
“[t]he purpose of the warrant was to draw a sample of blood from Martines to obtain evidence of DUI. It is not sensible to read the warrant in a way that stops short of obtaining that evidence. A warrant authorizing a blood draw necessarily authorizes blood testing, consistent with and confined to the finding of probable cause. The only way for the State to obtain evidence of DUI from a blood sample is to test the blood sample for intoxicants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Swartz
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.