State v. Resler’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 1992 · most notably 41 Wis. 2d 261 - National Amusement Co. v. Department of Revenue (1969), 168 Wis. 2d 486 - State v. Sauceda (1992)
27 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 ex rel. Husting v. Board of State Canvassers · Kuroske v. Ætna Life Insurance Co. · Tomasik v. Lanferman · State v. Retail Gasoline Dealers Ass'n of Milwaukee, Inc.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ [T] o require that facts be shown to prove that defendant’s operation of the car was so affected by his intoxication that the accident would not have happened if he had been sober, would be to impose an impossible burden upon the state in the prosecution of such a case.” Id. at 290 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) The fact that the analysis shows that there was five-hundredths of one per cent or less by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood is prima facie evidence that he was not under the influence of an intoxicant; “ (b) The fact that the analysis shows that there was more than five-hundredths but less than fifteen-hundredths of one per cent by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood is relevant evidence on the issue of intoxication but is not to be given any prima facie effect; “(c) The fact that the analysis shows that there was fifteen-hundredths of one per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood is prima facie evidence that he was under the influence of an intoxicant, but shall not, without corroborating physical evidence thereof, be sufficient upon which to find the person guilty of being under the influence of intoxicants.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““To accept the construction that the state would have us use would be to give the first sentence of the section no meaning at all, which is to treat it as surplusage. This we cannot do.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Driscoll
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.