Deaner v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Campbell v. Superior Court (1971), Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety (1976)
4 federal appellate · 83 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Escobedo v. Illinois · Schmerber v. State of California · Prichard v. Battle · Blow v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he implied consent of one who operates a vehicle on the public highways of Virginia to take a blood test, in the event he be charged with drunk driving, ... is a measure flowing from the police power of the state designed to protect other users of state highways. jJ? # % # H? ❖ It is not a qualified consent and it is not a conditional consent, and therefore there can be no qualified refusal or conditional refusal to take the test. The fact that under the Virginia statute an accused is afforded an opportunity to establish the reasonableness of his refusal does not operate to dilute the consent previously given, or convert that consent into a qualified or conditional one. The statute does excuse from [punishment for refusal to take] the test one whose refusal is reasonable[, such as] where a person’s health would be endangered by the withdrawal of blood.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A. Any person, whether licensed by Virginia or not, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway ... in the Commonwealth, shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of § 18.2-266. B. Any person so arrested for a violation of clause (i) or (ii) of § 18.2-266 or both ... shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit to the breath test, a blood test shall be given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would be that a decision to refuse the test would not be based upon “reasonableness,” as contemplated by the [i]m-plied [c]onsent [l]aw, but whether, in the judgment of the attorney, the refusing of the test would best serve the interest of his client in a trial of the criminal charge of drunk driving. Manifestly this would frustrate the intent and object of the law and perpetuate the evil it seeks to correct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.