Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Ohio App. 3d 227 - State v. Brockway

2 Ohio App. 3d 227 - State v. Brockway’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably State v. Vega (1984), 13 Ohio App. 3d 313 - State v. Schell (1984)

47 state decisions

27019811990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · City of Westerville v. Cunningham · City of Mentor v. Giordano · State v. Myers · City of Cincinnati v. Sand

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.

  1. ““[T]he court below failed to give recognition to the necessary legislative determination that breath tests, properly conducted, are reliable irrespective that not all experts wholly agree and that the common law foundational evidence has, for admissibility, been replaced by statute and rule; and that the legislative delegation was to the Director of Health, not the court, the discretionary authority for adoption of appropriate tests and procedures, including breath test devices.” Id. at 232 , 2 OBR at 253, 441 N.E.2d at 608.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Sec. 4511.19. No person who is under the influence of alcohol, narcotic drugs, or opiates shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state. In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section, or ordinance of any municipality relating to driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, the court may admit evidence on the concentration of alcohol in the defendant's blood at the time of the alleged violation as shown by chemical analysis of the defendant's blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance withdrawn within two hours of the time of such alleged violation. When a person submits to a blood test at the request of a police officer under section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, only a physician or a registered nurse shall withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content therein. This limitation does not apply to the taking of breath or urine specimens. Such bodily substance shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the director of health pursuant to section 3701.143 of the Revised Code. Such evidence gives rise to the following: (A) If there was at that concentration of less than fifteen hundredths of one per cent by weight of alcohol in the defendant’s blood, such fact shall not give rise to any presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of alcohol, but such fact may be considered with other compete”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““[I]t is evident that the General Assembly intended, because of the numerous types of equipment and procedures available for such alcohol tests, to achieve uniformity in testing in Ohio by delegating to the Director of Health authority to choose and approve of the specific tests and procedures to be used in Ohio.””
    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.