242 N.J. Super. 177 - State v. Todaro’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2010
6 state decisions
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 State v. Johnson · State v. Wright · In Re Kallen · 109 N.J. Super. 1 - State v. Pandoli · State v. Leavitt
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The defendant], for the first time on appeal, challenges the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a on the grounds that the breathalyzer refusal statute uses a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof rather than one of beyond a reasonable doubt. The constitutional argument is incorrectly premised, however, upon [the defendant’s] characterization of the refusal statute as criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. However, it is well settled in New Jersey that while drunk driving is a quasi-criminal offense, “[a] breathalyzer refusal hearing has always been treated as a civil matter; the standard of proof in such a proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Wright, 107 N.J. 488, 503 , 527 A.2d 379 (1987). See also State v. Pandoli, 109 N.J.Super. 1, 4 , 262 A.2d 41 (App.Div.1970).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cummings“I believe that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof is an unusually harsh burden of proof in a non-criminal case and will encourage more people to refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test. Thus, I recommend that the preponderance of the evidence standard currently utilized in the administrative hearing of this type of case be retained. [Report of the Governor to the Assembly re: Assembly Bill No. 2293 (January 4, 1982).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cummings
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.