Dods v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “§ 31-5-209. Driving on roadways laned for traffic. (a) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply: (i) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety[.] § 31-5-233. Driving or having control of vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor(.] [[Image here]] (b) No person shall drive or have actual physical control of any vehicle within this state if the person: ' (11) To a degree which renders him incapable of safely driving: (A) Is under the influence of alcohol[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Espinoza v. State ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation · Tiernan v. State, Department of Transportation

2. “[T]his is one bizarre statute. Apparently, it is not a crime if one violates the statute a little bit, but it is a crime if one violates the statute somewhat more than a little bit. If you stay in your lane, you have not violated the statute, but if you go out of your lane, you may have violated the statute. In the context of the present case, if the appellant's conduct may or may not have provided the officer with reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to believe that the appellant violated the statute, how on earth is the appellant supposed to have notice, before the fact, that his conduct will violate the statute?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith

3. “requirement and concluded: We ... agree with the [Tenth Cireuit's] assessment that a court must examine all of the surrounding cireumstances to determine whether there is a justification for the stop.... Under adverse weather and/or road conditions, any vehicle could be subject to an isolated incident of moving into the right shoulder of the roadway, without giving rise to a suspicion of erimi-nal activity. Gregory, 79 F.3d at 978. We keep in mind that Gregory, however, does not create a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Espinoza v. State ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation