Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 WIAPP 73 - State v. Marshall

State v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. Pettit · 208 Wis. 2d 166 - In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook · 124 Wis. 2d 628 - State v. Pitsch

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Notice of Intent to Revoke Operating Privilege”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Wlhether the fact that the percentage of alcohol in a person's blood stream rapidly diminishes after drinking stops alone constitutes a sufficient exigency [under the relevant constitutional provisions] to justify a warrant-less blood draw under the following circumstances: (1) the blood draw is taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer from a person lawfully arrested for a drunk-driving related violation or crime, and (2) there is a clear indication that the blood draw will produce evidence of intoxication.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Any person who . . . drives ... a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state... is deemed to have given consent to one or more tests of his or her breath, blood or urine, for the purpose of determining the presence or quantity in his or her blood or breath, of alcohol, controlled substances,... when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer under sub. (3)(a) or (am) or when required to do so under sub. (3)(ar) or (b).”
    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.