State v. Strand’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably State v. Van Kirk (2001), State v. Minkoff (2002)
34 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 Kyles v. Whitley · California v. Trombetta · Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co., Inc. · Kills on Top v. State · Montano v. Superior Court Pima County
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evanescent character of blood alcohol evidence,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In addition to any test administered at the direction of a peace officer, a person may request that an independent blood sample be drawn by a physician or registered nurse for the purpose of determining any measured amount or detected presence of alcohol, drugs, or any combination of alcohol and drugs in the person. The peace officer may not unreasonably impede the person’s right to obtain an independent blood test. The officer may but has no duty to transport the person to a medical facility or otherwise assist the person in obtaining the test. The cost of an independent test is the sole responsibility of the person requesting the test. The failure or inability to obtain an independent test by a person does not preclude the admissibility in evidence of any test given at the direction of the peace officer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]ne accused of DUI 'has a right to obtain a sobriety test independent of that offered by the arresting officer.' " Neva , ¶ 13 (collecting cases). ¶11 The State argues that "the remedy in Strand of suppressing the BAC test results cannot be granted in this case because the State did not 'succeed[ ] in obtaining a blood or breath test pursuant to the implied consent law,' " quoting our language in Strand . The State argues that the due process violation found in Strand did not occur here because Moore's blood sample was obtained by a search warrant, and not under the implied consent statutes. Moore replies that one accused of DUI "has a due process right to be advised of his right to an independent test if the State is taking his blood pursuant to either the implied consent law or via search warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Moore
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.