Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 253 Ga. 235 - Lester v. State

Lester v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
3
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Forte v. State (1986), Lattarulo v. State (1991)

44 state decisions

30019841990200020102020decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Nash v. United States

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

  1. “[t]he State must show, and the factfinder must find, that the defendant had at least a .12% blood-alcohol count while he was driving.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while: (1) Under the influence of alcohol; (2) Under the influence of any drug to a degree which renders him incapable of driving safely; (3) Under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug to a degree which renders him incapable of driving safely; or (4) There is 0.12 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “defines a specific act, driving while having a blood alcohol count of [then] at least .12%, as criminal. The state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed this act. [Cit.] Impaired driving ability is not a “fact necessary to constitute the crime.” . . . [The subsection] simply sets out an alternative method of proving the crime established by the DUI statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.