263 Cal. App. 2d 682 - Serenko v. Bright’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably 30 Cal. 3d 70 - Hernandez v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981), 28 Cal. 3d 781 - Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1981)
2 federal appellate · 54 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 81 Cal. App. 2d 384 - Hohreiter v. Garrison · Escobedo v. State of California · Watson v. Division of Motor Vehicles · Bertch v. Social Welfare Department · Corcoran v. San Francisco City & County Employees Retirement System
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Any person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall to given his consent to a chemical test of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe such person was driving a motor vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Such person shall be told that his failure to submit to or complete such a chemical test will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of six months. . . . “(b) If any such person refuses the officer’s request to submit to, or fails to complete, a chemical test, the department, upon receipt of the officer’s sworn statement that he had reasonable cause to believe such person had been driving a motor vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that the person had refused to submit to, or failed to complete, the test after being requested by the officer, shall suspend his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of six months. . . . “(c) The department shall immediately notify such person in writing of the action taken and upon his request in writing and within 15 days from the date of receipt of such request shall afford ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is not the act of obtaining a driver's license which brings the statute into play, but instead the act of driving a motor vehicle upon a California highway”
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.