Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 Mont. 229 - State v. Armfield

State v. Armfield’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
9
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably State v. Van Kirk (2001), Dawson v. State (2000)

34 state decisions

1301984199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Wade · Escobedo v. Illinois · Schmerber v. State of California · Gilbert v. California

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

  1. “Blood, breath, or urine tests. (1) Any person who operates or is in actual physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this state open to the public shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of 61-8-401, to a test of his blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining any measured amount or detected presence of alcohol in his body if arrested by a peace officer for driving or for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two. The test shall be administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this state open to the public, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two. The arresting officer may designate which test or tests shall be administered. (3) If a driver under arrest refuses upon the request of a peace officer to submit to a test designated by the arresting officer as provided in subsection (1), none shall be given, but the officer shall, on behalf of the department, immediately seize his driver’s license. The peace officer shall forward the license to the department, along with a sworn report that he had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this state open to the public, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combinatio”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1)Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given his consent to an evidentiary test for concentration of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances as defined in section 18-8004, Idaho Code, provided that such test is administered at the request of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe that person has been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or of any other intoxicating substances. (2) Such person shall not have the right to consult with an attorney before submitting to an evidentiary test for concentration of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances. (3) At the time an evidentiary test for concentration of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances is requested, the person shall be informed that if he refuses to take the test: (a) His license will be seized by the police officer and a temporary permit will be issued; provided, however, that no peace officer shall issue a temporary permit pursuant to this section to a driver whose license or permit has already been and is suspended or revoked because of previous violations: (b) He has the right to request a hearing within seven (7) days to show cause why he refused to take the test; (c) If he does not request a hearing or does not prevail at the hearing, his license will be suspended absolutely for one hundred eighty (180) days; and (d) After submitting to th”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[EJntitled to (1) the pretrial presence of counsel where the incident or encounter is a “critical stage” in the prosecutorial proceedings, and (2) the assistance of counsel at any stage in the pretrial proceedings where the advice of counsel is essential to the protection of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
    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.