State v. Luft’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The statute in question clearly requires that certain procedures shall be followed and certain notices shall be given to a defendant arrested for driving under the influence. K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 8-1001(f) was enacted as part of a comprehensive revision of the statutes pertaining to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The language of the statute is clearly mandatory. , . . We conclud e the notice provisions of K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 8-1001(f) are mandatory and not merely directory. The holding in Doeden to the contrary is overruled. The holding of the Court of Appeals in this case that the statute is directory and not mandatory is erroneous.” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 58 Kan. App. 2d 464 - City of Colby v. Foster · 16 Kan. App. 2d 537 - Meigs v. Kansas Department of Revenue

2. ““The clear language of the statute indicates that the legislature intended to ensure that a person arrested for driving under the influence was made aware, by the required notice procedure, of his statutory rights. Those rights include the right to obtain independent testing of his blood alcohol level following testing by or under the direction of a law enforcement officer. K.S.A. T985 Supp. 8-1004 both establishes this right to an independent test, and enforces compliance'by law officers. It provides that if the law enforcer ment officer refuses to permit the person tested to obtain such additional testing, the results of the test administered under the direction of the officer are inadmissible in evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Kan. App. 2d 639 - Ostmeyer v. Kansas Department of Revenue

3. ““We concluded, as did the Court of Appeals, that the law enforcement personnel had substantially complied with 8-1001(f) and affirmed Barnhart’s conviction. Thus, this court never reached the question whether the test results would have been suppressed for failure to give the statutory warning required by 8-1001(f). “That was. the posture of the law when this case was tried. Sixteen days after Luft was convicted, the decision in State v. Kelly was announced. In Kelly , the question of whether the failure to give the mandatory statutory warnings would result in suppression of the results of the blood alcohol test was answered.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Kan. App. 2d 639 - Ostmeyer v. Kansas Department of Revenue